Opinion ID: 2634386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The employees' freedom to engage in personal activities

Text: In Owens v. Local No. 169, Ass'n of Western Pulp & Paper Workers, the Ninth Circuit set out many of the factors courts have considered when determining the degree to which the employee is free to engage in personal activities: (1) whether there was an on-premises living requirement; (2) whether there were excessive geographical restrictions on employee's movements; (3) whether the frequency of calls was unduly restrictive; (4) whether a fixed time limit for response was unduly restrictive; (5) whether the on-call employee could easily trade on-call responsibilities; (6) whether use of a pager could ease restrictions; and (7) whether the employee had actually engaged in personal activities during call-in time. Such a list is illustrative, not exhaustive. No one factor is dispositive.[ [16] ] Since the court granted Throop summary judgment on this issue, we resolve any factual disputes in favor of Air Logistics. We assume for the purposes of this appeal that the mechanics in the field were not required to stay on the work site itself, that they had no set response time requirement, that they could carry radios that served as pagers, that calls to work were infrequent, and that they actually engaged in personal activities during hours while they were on-call. The on-premises living requirement (factor 1) favors Throop, [17] as does the fact that the employees could not easily trade shifts (factor 5), since there was generally only one mechanic in a remote area. But the infrequency of calls (factor 3), the lack of a fixed response time (factor 4), the availability of radios that worked as pagers (factor 6), and the fact that many employees actually engaged in personal activities (factor 7) favor Air Logistics. The remoteness of the locations  inaccessible by car  means that the mechanics were constrained geographically in a general sense (factor 2), which favors Throop. But the employees were not geographically constrained in the sense that they had to remain at the work site, which favors Air Logistics. Thus a cursory look at the factors suggests that, taken together, they could favor Air Logistics. However, the fact that the mechanics were in remote areas weighs heavily in favor of Throop. Several of the factors that favor Air Logistics are less important when one considers that the employees were in isolated locations for extended periods of time. Their ability to leave the work site, the lack of any fixed response time, the availability of a radio that worked as a pager, and the fact that they actually engaged in personal activities must be viewed in this context. It is true that the mechanics could hike, fish, read, watch movies, or work out. But they could not shop, go out to eat, run errands, work on their houses or cars, spend time with friends, or do anything else one would normally do in the community where one resides. They were not allowed to bring their families to two of the remote stations, and even at the other stations they could presumably only do so if their family members had no work or school commitments for the two weeks in question. Because of the way the schedule was set up, the employee had to suffer these restrictions for two full weeks, rather than just for one shift lasting for a day or less. A Ninth Circuit case, Brigham ex rel. Estate of Brigham v. Eugene Water & Electric Board, involved a situation with similar facts. [18] As with the present case, the employees were in a remote location and on-call for a certain number of hours each week. [19] They also had an on-premises living requirement, received infrequent calls, and routinely engaged in personal activities while they were on-call. [20] The facts were more favorable to the employees' case because the employees were required to stay within earshot during their on-call shift, [21] but less favorable to the employees because they had the ability to trade shifts. [22] Thus the Brigham facts are comparable to the present case. In Brigham the Ninth Circuit found the facts to favor the employees. [23] If the Owens factors favored the employees in Brigham, then the Air Logistics employees should prevail. While the Brigham employees were in a remote area, it was accessible by car and only seventy miles away from Eugene, Oregon. [24] Thus when they were not on-call or working they could actually go into a town or have friends visit them. The Brigham employees lived with their families, [25] so they could spend time with them even when they were on-call and required to stay on premises. [26] Finally, the on-call shifts for the Brigham employees only lasted twenty-four hours, and there was generally only one shift per week. [27] By comparison, the Air Logistics employees were required to stay in the remote location with no access to any town, even when they were not on-call, for fifteen full days, during which they were unable to spend any time with their friends or in many cases their families. We find that the isolated and inaccessible location and the extended period of time spent there by employees outweigh the other factors that favor Air Logistics. Thus, the Owens factors favor Throop.