Wage Law

A previously unpublished class certification opinion involving truck drivers with overtime, off-the-clock, meal/rest period and vacation pay claims has been ordered published in Bell v. Superior Court (H.F. Cox, Inc.) (2007) __ Cal.App.4th __.

Four employees of a petroleum transportation company sought to bring a wage and hour class action against their employer, alleging: (1) the failure to pay overtime; (2) the requirement of off-the-clock work; (3) the failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (4) the incorrect calculation of vacation pay; and (5) the failure to pay pro rata vacation pay upon termination of employment. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The trial court granted the motion in part, certifying only a class with respect to the claim for failure to pay vacation pay upon termination of employment. In all other respects, the motion was denied. Plaintiffs sought review by means of a petition for writ of mandate. We issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted and stayed further proceedings. We now conclude the trial court erred in failing to certify a class with respect to the overtime pay and vacation pay claims. We therefore grant the writ petition and direct the trial court to vacate its order, and enter a new and different order granting certification of a class with respect to those claims.

In Bell, it was undisputed that the drivers worked over 8/40, without overtime pay. The overtime dispute centered upon whether drivers were engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt. In addition to discussing certification standards in the course of holding that the overtime claims should have been certified, the opinion discusses the "4 month rule" and the broad inclusive definition of "interstate commerce." With respect to off-the-clock claims, the court found that the particular facts and evidence in this case left the court with ample discretion to deny certification.

The trial court denied the motion for class certification with respect to the claim for off-the-clock work on the basis that there was no way to determine which members of the proposed class had actually worked off the clock. Given that plaintiffs themselves disagreed on when or if they had worked off the clock, the court found no common issues with respect to this claim.

On the meal/rest period claims, the trial court was within its discretion to deny certification in light of evidence that drivers were scheduled for 10 hours of work within a 12-hour period to allow for breaks; that  all terminals have break areas; that drivers testified that they took breaks, were permitted to take breaks, and saw others taking breaks; that the employer stressed to its workers the importance of breaks and allowed meal and rest breaks at the discretion of its drivers; and that drivers had seen two of the named plaintiffs taking breaks; such that there was no way of determining which drivers were permitted to take breaks and which were not, and there was no evidence of a companywide policy denying breaks.

Finally, the opinion holds that the trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification on the vacation pay claims because a common legal question predominated over any individual issues. The opinion includes some nice language about how improper it is for the trial court to conclude that class certification is not a superior means of adjudicating disputes regarding overtime pay and vacation pay simply because of the amount of money recoverable in individual actions and the availability of Berman hearings with the DLSE.

You can download the full text of Bell v. Superior Court here in pdf or word format.