Opinion ID: 697027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the portal to portal act

Text: 7 The employees argue that the district court erred by concluding that the non-driving employees travel time was not compensable for purposes of calculating overtime under Sec. 254(a) of the Portal to Portal Act. Although the plain language of the statute clearly excludes travel time for purposes of calculating overtime pay, the Portal to Portal Act's general exclusion does not apply to preliminary or postliminary activities that are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed .... Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256 (1956). 8 We turn to the applicable administrative regulations in order to determine whether the disputed travel time was an indispensable part of the principal activities for which the employees were employed. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 785.38 (1991) provides that travel time from job-site to job-site is part of an employee's principal activity and must be counted for purposes of calculating overtime if the employee is required to report to a meeting place to receive instructions, carry tools, or perform other work there. 9 In its motion for summary judgment, Riverside included a statement of material uncontested facts. 4 That statement included affidavits stating that travel in the company van was not mandatory, that no work instructions were issued at the Oro Grande facility, and that employees were not required to carry specialized tools or equipment with them in the company van to the Crestmore facility. The employees' cross-motion for summary judgment admitted that there were no material issues in dispute and was not accompanied by a statement of genuine issues. 5 Consequently, we assume the material facts as claimed and adequately supported by Riverside in its motion for summary judgement exist without controversy. 6 10 Based on these uncontroverted facts, we conclude that travel to and from the Crestmore facility in the company van was not an integral and indispensable part of the principal activity for which the employees were hired. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 790.8 (1991). The employees in question were employed to work on capital improvements at the Crestmore facility. The use of the company van was a gratuitous service unrelated to the work to be performed at the Crestmore facility. Consequently, we believe the district court properly determined that the travel time was not compensable under the terms of the Portal to Portal Act.