Opinion ID: 2623203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: On-Call Rates in the Computation of Hutka's Overtime Rate of Pay

Text: A question similar to the issue of shift differential is whether Hutka is entitled to add an on-call premium to her regular rate for purposes of computing overtime. [41] The trial court found that the standard for determining whether Hutka is entitled to include on-call rates is the extent to which it burdens her life and ... it seemed to be an insignificant burden to her life. Providence points to three cases with holdings similar to that of the superior court. [42] One of these, Owens v. Local 169, sets forth the two predominant factors to be used in determining whether an employee's on-call time is compensable as overtime: (1) the employee's freedom to engage in personal activities, and (2) the agreements between the parties. [43] Hutka's own trial testimony suggested that her administrative on-call hours did not restrict her freedom. And Providence correctly points out that Hutka's contract did not require that she receive on-call pay rates for administrative call. We conclude that the superior court's application of the legal standard of the extent to which on-call hours burden an employee's life was not in error. We affirm the superior court's factual finding that the burden of on-call time on Hutka appeared insignificant. We also affirm the superior court's conclusion that the contract did not include on-call pay.