Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

[secure15 <secure15@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  Lesson from Brink's case: Check your state's wage laws
By Martha Entwistle, managing editor - 10.25.2007

OLYMPIA, Wash.-- Last Thursday's Washington State Supreme Court decision
that said Brink's Home Security technicians should be paid for driving
company trucks to and from their homes to job sites, will have
repercussions for other security companies in the state of Washington,
and companies in other states as well, according to an industry attorney.

Mark Neuberger, an attorney concentrating on labor and employment law
with Buchanan, Ingersoll, PC, noted that a Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act regulates these issues on a federal level. He surmised that this
case would not have been decided in the employees' favor under the
federal law, but pointed out that many states, including Washington,
"have more protective wage-hour laws."

"Any employer in the industry in the state of Washington will want to be
very familiar with this case...[and employers in other states] will want
to check with their state's wage-hour laws to see what it says about
this kind of activity," Neuberger said.

The Oct. 25 decision on the Brink's workers, upheld a lower court
decision that awarded $1.4 million in back pay, attorneys' fees and
interest, to 70 Brink's Home Security technicians. The case was
originally filed November 2002.

Justice Susan Owens wrote in the majority 7-2 decision that the
technicians were on duty and in a prescribed workplace while driving the
trucks, and therefore were protected under the state's wage-hour laws.

Neuberger cautioned that cases dealing with wage-hour claims "are the
hottest area being litigated by employees." In states with protective
minimum wage-hour laws, such as California, "there are entire groups of
lawyers who are filing these cases," he said, because all they need to
do under the federal law is "prove that there was one hour of unpaid
wages and they're entitled to receive attorneys' fees."

Brink's does not intend to pursue further legal challenge, said Rod
McDonald, vice president, secretary and general counsel of Brink's Home
Security. He said Brink's was "naturally disappointed in the Court's
decision, which we believe is not an accurate interpretation of the
statutory requirements or judicial precedent."

McDonald said Brink's believes the ruling is "ultimately detrimental not
only to employers, but also to employees who may no longer receive the
benefit of using company-provided vehicles under certain circumstances."

He surmised that other security companies may be affected by this case
as well as

"any company that offers, or would like to offer, its employees the
voluntary use of company-owned vehicles for commuting and work purposes."

The practical result is that "Brink's can no longer provide its
Washington employees the voluntary home dispatch option, and it is
likely that there are a great many other companies doing business in
Washington that are also re-evaluating similar programs," he said.


SDN Newswire 10.25.2007