Opinion ID: 438764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Characterization of Pre-Shift Activities.

Text: 6 The district court held that these pre-shift activities were preliminary activities and therefore exempt from the overtime requirements. Under section 4(a) of the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers are not required to pay overtime compensation for activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities .... 29 U.S.C. Sec. 254(a)(2). Pre-shift activities are compensable if they are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed and are not specifically excluded by Section 4(a)(1). Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256, 76 S.Ct. 330, 335, 100 L.Ed. 267 (1956). The district court found that the reading of the log book and exchanging of information were necessary and integral parts of the employees' principal activities, but held that they were preliminary activities because they were neither necessary nor required to be performed before the start of the shift. 7 The evidence supports the district court's finding that the Corps did not require the employees to report early. Most of the employees testified that they were never specifically ordered to report early, but that it was the custom to do so. They were never formally reprimanded for not arriving early. There was evidence that employees felt pressure from fellow workers to arrive early so that outgoing employees could leave 5 minutes early. Moreover, on July 18, 1977, the Corps issued a letter, known as the Westrick letter, stating its policy that employees were not required to arrive early to review the log book and exchange information. 8 The court also found that the employees did not have to read the log book and exchange information prior to the start of their shifts. The evidence showed that the employees did not always finish reading the log book or even look at the log book before their shifts, often because they did not arrive early enough to work. Moreover, all the necessary information could be derived from the log book. 9 Plaintiffs, however, correctly argue that the district court erred in holding that an employer must require an employee to arrive early to be liable for overtime compensation. 1 An employer must pay overtime when he suffers or permits an employee to work in excess of 40 hours. 29 U.S.C. Secs. 203(g), 207(a). We have interpreted the words suffer or permit to mean with the knowledge of the employer. Fox v. Summit King Mines, 143 F.2d 926, 932 (9th Cir.1944). Relying on Fox, we have more recently held that an employer who knows or should have known that an employee is or was working overtime is obligated to pay overtime. Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1981). An employer who is armed with this knowledge cannot stand idly by and allow an employee to perform overtime work without proper compensation, even if the employee does not make a claim for the overtime compensation. Id. 10 Plaintiffs also correctly assert that the district court erroneously ruled that the pre-shift work was preliminary because the employees could have performed it during their regular working hours. As the Department of Labor stated in an interpretive bulletin, Congress intended the words 'principal activities' to be construed liberally ... to include any work of consequence performed for an employer, no matter when the work is performed. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 790.8(a) (footnote omitted). We show great deference to an administrative interpretation given by the agency charged with the statute's administration. See Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965); Dunlop v. City Electric, Inc., 527 F.2d at 398 & n. 5 (Sec. 790.8(a) given great weight). The district court cites no authority, nor has this court found any, which suggests that an employee's labor is not integral and indispensable if it could have been performed during regular hours. As long as the work is suffered or permitted outside of normal hours, the work is compensable. 11 Despite these erroneous rulings, we affirm the district court's decision. Although prior to the Westrick letter the Corps suffered or permitted the overtime work 2 , plaintiffs reported early for their own convenience. Employees who report early to relieve outgoing employees before the end of their shifts do so for their own convenience rather than for the company's benefit. See Blum v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 418 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1969); Jackson v. Air Reduction Co., 402 F.2d 521, 524 (6th Cir.1968). In this case, the district court found that it was often the practice of the employees to leave work up to 5 minutes before the end of their shifts. This was possible only if the replacement shift was present and ready to assume the shift 5 minutes early. Moreover, as the district court concluded, evidence showed that prior to the start of their shifts, plaintiffs engaged in social conversation and performed non-work related activities. Many of the employees testified that they drank coffee and socialized before their shifts. To the extent plaintiffs arrived early for these reasons, their claim for overtime compensation is without merit. 12 Once the Corps issued the Westrick letter, it did not even suffer or permit the overtime work. An employer cannot escape its obligation to pay overtime compensation for necessary and indispensable work that it expects to be performed outside of normal hours or that must be performed prior to a shift simply by instructing employees not to report early. See Wirtz v. Bledsoe, 365 F.2d 277, 278 (10th Cir.1966); Handler v. Thrasher, 191 F.2d 120, 123 (10th Cir.1951). The employees in this case, however, could have performed the pre-shift work during regular hours. The Westrick letter, therefore, relieved the Corps of its liability to pay overtime compensation. 3 Otherwise, the Corps would have no means of protecting itself from claims of overtime compensation. Moreover, the Corps did not pressure or even encourage the employees to report early to work. As the district court found, the Corps did not formally reprimand, dock, or give a poor evaluation to any employee for not reporting early. 13