Monday, August 02, 2010
Generally, Federal law, even Federal regulations will supersede state and local laws and regulations. However, there are situations where state and/or local law or even regulations will triumph over the Federal government’s counter-part, i.e., Federal vs. state minimum wage and overtime laws. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 09-2691 affirmed that if the state law provides for a wage higher than the Federal Minimum Wage, the state wage prevails. Thus, the Appeals Court concluded that the district court did “… not err in concluding that plaintiffs are entitled to be paid for all time required by Wisconsin law …”
In the original case, a Kraft worker argued that required safety equipment, i.e., “steel-toed boots and hard hats, plus a smock that keeps other garments clean” does not meet the definition of “clothing” under Federal labor law and the time spent “donning and doffing“safety equipment should be considered compensatory time and paid at the higher rate of pay, i.e., the Wisconsin state minimum wage. The worked argued this even though his union had bargained in good faith to exclude this time from time worked. 29 U.S.C. §203(o), provides that unions and employers may bargain for “donning and doffing“ time and agree that such time is exempted from paid time, rather it is compensated for by a higher rate of pay during the rest of the shift. Usually, “donning and doffing” time at the beginning and the end of each shift entails 5-15 minutes and is integral to the safe and hygienic operations of a food processing plant.
In addressing the worker’s first point, that “donning and doffing’” time should be considered compensatory time the Appeals Court dismissed the argument every quickly with little fanfare by commenting:
“They have two principal arguments: first that protective gear is not “clothing” under §203(o), and second that Wisconsin’s own wage-and-hour legislation lacks any equivalent to §203(o). The first of these arguments is a loser, for reasons given in Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., 591 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2009). We agree with Sepulveda and need not repeat its analysis.”
In agreeing with the Kraft workers' second position, the Appeals Court concluded that:
“Nothing that labor and management put in a collective bargaining agreement exempts them from state laws of general application ... States can set substantive rules that determine the effective net wage, even when a CBA plays a role (as it does when a law requires overtime pay at some multiple of the base pay set in a collective bargaining agreement).”
Therefore, in this case state law provided for a higher rate of pay than the Federal Minimum Wage provider for and since nothing in Federal labor law pre-empted state law, state law prevailed.
When employed by an organization that operates in numerous states, it is essential that you understand the fine line details of Federal, state, and local wage and hour as well as labor law.
As always, you should seek out qualified professional and credentialed advice when dealing with wage and hour as well as labor law issues affecting your organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment