Morillion v. Royal Packing

28 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Whether Meal Periods During Which Employees Are Restricted to their Employer's Premises Constitute Hours Worked

    California Department of Industrial RelationsJanuary 12, 2001

    Bono Enterprises, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 977 .The Bono Court's interpretation of "hours worked" was expressly approved by the California Supreme Court in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575 [holding that agricultural employees were subject to employer control during time spent riding to and from fields when required to ride in employer provided buses, and thus, that such time was compensable under the applicable IWC Order] . The Supreme Court held:"[T]he two phrases -- "time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer" and "time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so" -- can also be interpreted as independent factors, each of which defines whether certain time spent is compensable as "hours worked.

  2. California Employers: Required Security Screening May Be Compensable Work Time

    Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLPAmanda SemaanFebruary 19, 2020

    Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order No. 7-2001 (Wage Order 7), which covers all persons employed in the mercantile industry, requires employers to pay their employees a minimum wage for all "hours worked" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. 4(B)), defined as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Id.; § 11070, subd. 2(G).Citing to its prior decisions – including Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575, 582 (2000), a case that addressed compulsory employer-provided transportation to and from work – the Court explained that the two phrases of the "hours worked" definition establish "independent factors, each of which defines whether certain time spent is compensable as 'hours worked.'" Thus, an employee who is subject to the control of an employer does not have to be working during that time to be compensated under Wage Order 7.

  3. Resident Employees (906)

    California Department of Industrial RelationsApril 23, 2003

    7 (1998).)” (Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 589) (Emphasis added)With this admonition from the California Supreme Court, you can clearly understand why it is imperative that we view this response in light of the fact that, as you state, the employees are not required to remain on the premises. “Resident employees are not ‘at work’ all the time they reside on premises, nor are they on call during all the time they reside on premises but may, on occasion, be called to service as needed.”

  4. "Hours of Work" for Public Transit Employees Required to Start and End Their Shifts at Different Locations

    California Department of Industrial RelationsJanuary 29, 2002

    Section 2(G) of Order 9-2001 defines "hours worked" as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." In Morillion v. Royal Packing Company (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 582, the Supreme Court construed identical language in IWC Order 14, and held that the two phrases -- "time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer" and "time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so" -- are "independent factors, each of which defines whether certain time spent is compensable as hours worked'."Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the , "an employee who is subject to an employer's control does not have to be working during that time to be compensated under Wage Order No.14-80."

  5. Security Checks Gain Renewed Attention

    CDF Labor Law LLPSeptember 9, 2022

    Unsurprisingly, Huerta argues that because he and the other employees were subject to the employer’s control this entire time, they should be compensated for the time spent undergoing these procedures. From the employer’s perspective, however, this time is not compensable because employees are not required to exit their cars— they simply hold up their badges for scanning (analogous to scanning a badge to enter a facility), and the drive time is essentially a continuation of their commute, as employees can take their own cars or carpool (as opposed to riding in employer-mandated transportation, which is compensable under Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (2000)). Further, the driving rules are akin to general workplace requirements and are not burdensome, but rather reflect the nature of the property.

  6. California Supreme Court Asked To Weigh In On “Hours Worked” Questions

    Seyfarth Shaw LLPJuly 19, 2022

    ” However, the Ninth Circuit stated that “California law provides no clear answer” on whether Wage Order 16 requires employers to compensate workers for time spent on company property in a personal vehicle waiting to scan an ID badge, permit security to inspect a vehicle, and then exit a security gate.With respect to whether drive time between the security gate and the employers’ parking lot are considered hours worked, the Ninth Circuit found that “[n]o controlling California precedent has answered the certified question of whether Wage Order No. 16 requires compensating workers for time spent driving between the entrance/exit of the employer’s premises and the location where the shift begins/ends.” While California cases concerning off-premises transportation such as Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. 2000), and Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 852 (Ct. App. 2018), are instructional, the California Supreme Court has not decided the specific issue of whether driving on an employer’s premises, in a personal vehicle, before or after a shift, while subjected to an employer’s rules, is compensable as “hours worked” under the control prong of Wage Order 16.Moreover, Section 5(A) of Wage Order 16 states, “All employer mandated travel that occurs after the first location where the employee’s presence is required by the employer shall be compensated at the employee’s regular rate of pay or, if applicable, the premium rate . . . .”

  7. U.S. Supreme Court Decision Affects California Agricultural Growers

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPMichael DrokeJune 24, 2021

    However, bussing workers to the job site may create wage and hour risk under generally-applicable California law.Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (2000).California AgriculturalLabor Relations Act (ALRA) Summary: ALRB Handbook (ca.gov) Supreme Court Decision: 20-107 Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (06/23/2021) (supremecourt.

  8. California Supreme Court Holds That Dynamex Applies Retroactively

    Payne & FearsJames Moss, Jr.January 16, 2021

    Moreover, the court wrote that retroactivity has been applied even when a litigant does not have complete foresight into the court’s decisions that undermine the party’s prior understanding. Nevertheless, the court wrote that its adoption of the ABC test was predictable given the court’s decision inMorillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000), a work-related travel case. In that case, the court noted that federal cases had interpreted “suffer or permit” to mean that a putative employer knows or should have known that work is being performed on its behalf.

  9. Now More Than Ever, California Employers Need To Stay Abreast Of Working Time and Control Issues

    Fisher PhillipsJohn SkousenApril 28, 2020

    For example, in January 2000, California reinstated daily overtime and passed a plethora of new Labor Code provisions protecting employees subject to the employer’s control. In Morillion v. Royal Packing (2000), the California Supreme Court cited the control test for “hours worked” when concluding that employees forced to ride company-furnished transportation to the work site had to be paid even though they were not performing any work under federal law. The Morillion test has been cited in a variety of landmark decisions carving out the wage and hour landscape of California.“Hours Worked” And The De Minimis TestFederal courts have held that employers may disregard time as de minimis depending on three factors: (1) the practical difficulty the employer would encounter in recording the additional time, (2) the total amount of compensable time, and (3) the regularity of the additional work.

  10. California Supreme Court Holds Employers Must Pay Non-Exempt Employees for On-Site Security Screenings

    Paul Hastings LLPFebruary 26, 2020

    ” The California Supreme Court answered “yes,” focusing solely on the “control” prong under the Wage Order. First, the court found the employees remained under Apple’s control while awaiting, and during, the exit searches because Apple (1) required employees to comply with the bag-search policy under threat of discipline; (2) confined its employees to the premises as they waited for and underwent exit searches; and (3) compelled employees to perform supervised tasks while awaiting, and during, the search (i.e., locating a manager or security guard to conduct the search, unzipping and opening all bags and packages, moving around items within a bag or package, and removing any personal devices for inspection). Next, the court rejected Apple’s argument that exit searches were not compensable under Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000), and its progeny because employees could avoid searches by choosing not to bring a personal bag to work. The court noted, among other things, that the nature of the controlled activity in those cases involved “optional services that primarily benefit[ed] the employee.”