IBJNews

Workers not owed for changing time, Supreme Court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Companies in many cases don’t have to pay workers for the time they spend putting on and taking off safety gear, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, siding with U.S. Steel Corp. in a lawsuit by 800 workers.

The justices on Monday unanimously said the U.S. Steel employees are bound by their collective bargaining agreement, which says they get paid only for time at their work stations. The workers argued that a federal wage-and-hour law entitled them to additional wages no matter what the union agreement said.

Corporate trade groups said a ruling in the workers’ favor would have been costly. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, whose 300-plus members include Coca Cola Co. and Kraft Foods Group Inc., said a Supreme Court defeat would have forced companies to pay millions of employees more than $1,500 each.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel was being sued by workers at its Indiana facility, in Gary. The workers said they spend as much as an hour before and after their shifts donning protective gear, including flame-retardant clothing and steel-toed boots, and then traveling to their work stations.

The union that represents 4,500 workers at the Gary facility, the United Steelworkers of America, wasn’t involved in the case. Since 1947, the union’s contracts with U.S. Steel have said workers don’t get paid for changing time.

The case turned on a provision in the federal law that says a collective bargaining agreement governs whether workers get paid for time spent “changing clothes.” The workers said their gear isn’t “clothes” because its primary function is to protect against workplace hazards.

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected that interpretation. “We see no basis for the proposition that the unmodified term ‘clothes’ somehow omits protective clothing,” he wrote.

The court also rejected the employees’ contention that they are “changing” clothes only if they are substituting one article for another, and not if they are simply adding or subtracting items.

The court said “changing clothes” covers the entire activity of putting on and taking off gear needed for the workday, adopting U.S. Steel’s interpretation of the law.

The Obama administration largely supported U.S. Steel in the case, though arguing for a less categorical legal rule.

A federal appeals court ruled against the workers, barring them from claiming compensation for the time they spend in the dressing rooms and in transit to their work stations.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT