The court first stated that the California Overtime Act, Labour Code 510, contains an explicit exception to the fact that “the requirements of this section do not apply to the payment of overtime pay to a worker who, in accordance with … [a]n alternative workweek plan adopted pursuant to a collective agreement pursuant to Section 514.” Section 514 exempts an employer from California`s overtime laws where a CBA “explicitly provides for workers` wages, working hours and working conditions and the agreement provides premium rates for all overtime worked and a regular hourly wage for those workers who are no less than 30% above the state minimum wage.” The Tribunal justified this decision by the fact that if, in this case, the CBAs meet the requirements of the section 514 labour code, Curtis` right to work overtime exists only within the CBA and is therefore anticipated. The FLSA imposes ground-floor requirements for businesses. Businesses must pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage if it is higher, and companies must pay the federal overtime rate. A CBA may provide for a different rate in limited situations. For example, the CBA can define “overtime” as a multi-total work of more than 35 hours per week. When a worker works 36 hours, that worker must receive the additional hourly wage indicated in the KBA; However, this rate of overtime does not necessarily have to be one and a half times the wage of the worker, since this rate only applies to work performed beyond 40 hours. The rate in the CBA could be lower or higher. Curtis cited a 2003 9th Circuit case in which the Court of Appeal ruled that the right to overtime was not anticipated by the LMRA (Gregory v. SCIE, LLC). In that case, the court found that Section 510 of the California Labour Code determined what constituted “overtime” and, therefore, the application was based on the interpretation of California law and not on a CBA.

As the analysis did not require interpretation of the CBA, the claims were not anticipated. Curtis said the court should follow its own precedent and decide once again that overtime requests were not anticipated by federal law. The amount of contributions of workers represented by unions is subject to federal and regional laws and court decisions. The Fair Labor Standards Act regulates wage and hour laws in the United States. FlSA is a federal law, but it generally applies to all businesses (rare exceptions apply). Under the FLSA, companies must pay non-exempt overtime equal to one and a half times the worker`s normal wage if the worker works more than 40 hours per work week. If the Agency finds that no impasse has been reached, the employer is invited to return to the bargaining table. In extreme cases, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to compel the employer to negotiate. Employers will often argue that some counter-claims against them should be anticipated by the Employment Services Act (MRA), a federal law that provides parameters for unionized jobs. On January 29, the 9th U.S.

Court of Appeals awarded a victory to the employer of Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc., but employers should not necessarily think that this case offers them an automatic pardon of state law in every situation. Continue reading to understand the nuances at stake and whether federal pre-emption law might work to clarify your California operations. Courts should consider two different political considerations to guide their decisions when an independence inquiry does not result in a clear result. Moreover, even in cases where a clear post-independence result can have extreme consequences on federal arbitration or state regulatory regimes that should be considered.