Posted by Divina Tanamal.
An unnamed telephone marketing company was recently brought to trial by the Department of Labor. The company was accused of unfair treatment of its employees for not allowing them to be financially compensated while taking breaks in between working hours. Although the sales representatives were able to log off their computers and take breaks in any frequency or duration that they desire, once they become inactive for more than 90 seconds, their wage hours are placed on pause. Essentially, they are not paid for their break times. The Department of Labor implicated that Title 29, Part 785.18 of the Code of Federal Regulations stated that, “rest periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry” and that they “promote the efficiency of the employee, [therefore] are customarily paid for as working time.” This portrays the company’s unwillingness to pay its employees’ break times as incompliant with federal regulations.
Nonetheless, the company retaliated by claiming that another segment of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 C.F.R. § 785.16) states that when “an employee is completely relieved from duty which are long enough…to use the time for his own purposes,” that time is to considered as “hours worked.” In essence, the company has a loose break time policy that allowed its employees to leave their computers whenever or however often they liked, liberating their employers from any obligation to pay for the breaks taken.
In my opinion, the company’s institution of its break times policy was merely a stratagem to minimize the employees’ incentive to take breaks. Since it is expected for most places of employment to allow their workers to take brief paid breaks, this company should not be exempted from that same expectation. It is only just for employees to be able to take breaks in between hours of working without the deterrent.
The case was brought in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. The court claimed that 29 C.F.R. § 785.18 is a more widely accepted rule compared to the more specific 785.16, illustrating its disagreement with the company’s appeal.
Divina is a business administration in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.