Re: Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

>What kind of Mickey Mouse stuff is this? If you're in a company vehicle,
>driving to a job site why wouldn't you be getting paid? I bet the customer
>is getting billed for travel time. And what's this crap about letting the
>employee drive a company vehicle just because Brink's is magnanimous about
>it and now it may have to stop? Please! If Brinks wasn't making or saving a
>buck for Brinks in some way by doing it, it wouldn't be done in the first
>place.

I looked up the court's opinion.  I think these Brink's employees screwed
up a good thing for their co-workers.  This was a voluntary program.

As Bob pointed out, there are definite advantages for employees who live
some distance from the shop.  By driving directly to the first job of the
day, and driving straight home from the last job, their commuting time is
reduced, and they don't have to spend money on personal vehicle commuting
expenses.  In exchange, Brink's gets more work out of them.  For an
installer who lives two blocks from the shop, there's little benefit.  But
for an installer who lives 25 miles from the shop, it's a real benefit.

Anyway, according to the Washington Supreme Court, here's the story.
Brink's gave their techs a choice.  Techs could drive their own cars to the
Brink's office on their own time, pick up a company truck, and get paid for
all the travel time in a Brink's truck.  Or, a tech could choose the home
dispatch program:  take the company truck home at night, pick up their
calls by voice mail or computer, and travel to their first job (and home
from their last job) on their own time.  They got paid for all travel time
between jobs during the day.  If the first or last job was over 45 minutes
from the tech's home or Brink's, the tech got paid for the excess time.

A group of techs sued back in 2002, claiming Brink's should have paid them
for the travel time under Washington law, which says that 'hours worked"
means all hours where the employee is required to be on duty at the
employer's premises or at a prescribed work place.

The court said the employees were on duty during the drive time because
Brink's strictly controls their use of the company trucks.  Company policy
says the trucks can only be used for company business, and may not be used
to run personal errands.  Non-Brink's employees are not allowed in the
trucks.   Techs must remain available to handle other calls while driving
to and from jobs, plus they must spend time writing down the day's calls
and planning their route.  Company policy also requires techs to do all
their paperwork either at a customer's home or in a company truck.

Based on all that, the court ruled that the truck is their "prescribed work
place" and that they were on duty, and deserved to be paid.  The court also
awarded attorney's fees and costs.