Opinion ID: 2634386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The employment agreement

Text: The second factor to consider is the agreement. An agreement to pay overtime while an employee is on-call does not necessarily mean that the time spent by the employee is compensable under wage and hour law. [28] That said, however, an agreement between parties is one factor that the fact finder properly should consider. [29] In Berry v. County of Sonoma , the Ninth Circuit discussed the significance of employment agreements in resolving whether time is compensable under the FLSA: The significance and importance of evaluating the agreements between the parties is that the existence of such agreements assists the trier of fact in determining whether the parties characterized the time spent waiting on-call as actual work. An agreement between the parties which provides at least some type of compensation for on-call waiting time may suggest the parties characterize waiting time as work. Conversely, an agreement pursuant to which the employees are to be paid only for time spent actually working, and not merely waiting to work, may suggest the parties do not characterize waiting time as work.[ [30] ] Under this analysis, the fact that Air Logistics agreed to compensate its employees at their regular rate and pay them overtime for any hours scheduled over eight per day/forty per week weighs in favor of the employees. [31] It is also relevant that the employees were effectively required to reside on the premises. There is a Federal Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division interpretive regulation that deals with situations, such as this one, in which employees are residing on employer's premises or working at home: An employee who resides on his employer's premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the premises. Ordinarily, he may engage in normal private pursuits and thus have enough time for eating, sleeping, entertaining, and other periods of complete freedom from all duties when he may leave the premises for purposes of his own. It is, of course, difficult to determine the exact hours worked under these circumstances and any reasonable agreement of the parties which takes into consideration all of the pertinent facts will be accepted. [ [32] ] This interpretive regulation, while not binding, is persuasive authority. [33] In Brigham, the court found that even though the Owens factors discussed above favored the employees, the agreement was reasonable and thus controlling under 29 C.F.R. § 785.23. [34] In Brigham the employees were on-call for a twenty-four-hour period, of which they actually worked for approximately six hours. [35] Under their agreement they were compensated for ten hours of work. [36] In looking at whether the agreement was reasonable, the Brigham court noted the pressures and other constraints imposed on employees by virtue of their on-call duties, and concluded there was no reason why these factors cannot be accounted for as work time equivalents given the ways in which they diminished the otherwise unfettered enjoyment of the employees' time while on-call. [37] Thus, the court found that the parties' agreement treating the otherwise formally uncompensated duty shift call time as equivalent to four hours' actual work is eminently reasonable. [38] This analysis can be applied to the case at hand. Here, the employees performed a few hours of actual work each day, were on-call for ten hours, and were required to remain in a remote location twenty-four hours per day. Under their agreement they were paid for ten hours a day. This agreement  that a few hours of work, ten hours of on-call time, and twenty-four hours in a remote location is equivalent to ten hours of actual work  appears reasonable. Thus we find that the agreement to pay the employees ten hours per day favors the employees under the Federal DOL interpretive regulation. Since the facts viewed in favor of nonmovant Air Logistics favor the employees with respect to both of the Hutka factors  the employees' freedom to engage in personal activities and the employment agreement  summary judgment on this issue was appropriate.