It’s always a great thing when employers and unions can work together to do something nice for their employees and members.  It shows employees that both groups are there to support the employees and appreciate their service, and also demonstrates that employers and unions don’t have to be at each other’s throats every day.

However, even some of the best laid plans for treating employees can go awry, as we saw in the arbitration between St. Paul Public Schools and Teamsters, Local 320.  In that case, the district required its Nutrition Service Supervisors and Assistants to attend a pre-school year “bootcamp.”  Prior to the training, the district informed the employees that registration and breakfast or lunch would take place a half-hour before the training program.  The breakfast and socializing was sponsored by the Union.

After the training was completed, the district refused to pay the attendees the thirty minutes of pay they claimed for attending the optional breakfast or lunch portion of the program, and only paid them for their time in training.  The union grieved the district’s unwillingness to pay.

In its argument, the union agreed that it bore the burden of proof, given it was a contract interpretation case.  However, it argued that the district required the grievants to arrive at the location half an hour prior to the start of the training program, and could not “evade its responsibility” to pay employees for time spend attending the mandatory training, even though it “was a union event.”

For its part, the district argued that only the training portion of the boot camp was mandatory, and not only did the union sponsor the food portions of the event, but it also had a representative greeting members at the door and mingle with members during the breakfast.

Arbitrator Ver Ploeg was having very little of the union’s argument.  First, she noted that the breakfast portion of the event was not part of the training, and there were no educational components to the service, despite the union members being Nutrition Specialists.  She also cited the FLSA, which differentiates between being “engaged to wait,” which is compensable time, and “waiting to be engaged,” which is not considered work time.

As convincing a victory as it was, it is always important for employers to be clear about the directions they give employees when optional exercises or socializing surrounds part of an employee’s regular work day.  If there is any gray area, or crossover between an employee’s regular duties and the activities taking place in the non-work activity, an employer could be on the hook for paying its employees when that was never the employer’s intention.  If you, or your organization, need assistance in determining what activities are and are not compensable, contact Wiley Reber Law, for wage and hour advice that works.