Court Opinion

ID: 9727543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:42:27.211683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:39.991407
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
By a petition for rehearing, plaintiffs argue that the judgment and writ issued below, commanding the defendants “. . . to include the meal period, also known as ’Code 7’ time ... in their normal eight-*79hour day, or if not so included, to make overtime cash payments to them for said time, or give them time off from work with pay, excluding from compensation the actual time spent in consuming their meal,” granted them a form of relief to which footnote 8 of our opinion herein held them to be entitled.
(1) The footnote referred to did not decide the right of plaintiffs to a writ of mandate which did not include the alternative of overtime compensation. The arguments to us touched only tangentially on the interpretation of the last paragraph of section 4.168(b)(1) and we intended no more than the indication that a litigable issue over the interpretation of that language existed.
(2) We cannot, on this record, sustain and affirm part of what was a unitary mandate while, at the same time, reversing another portion of the same unified order.
(3) Our reversal of the judgment sends the cause back for whatever additional proceedings the parties and the trial court may deem proper. Nothing in our opinion or judgment would prevent a retrial directed to the particular issue now urged on us.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 9, 1972, and the petition of the plaintiffs and appellants for a hearing by the Supreme Couit was denied March 16, 1972. Peters, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.