Archive for month: March, 2024

Employers in California who guard their premises with security gates must pay their employees for the time they spend driving to the gates and being searched, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday. The court also required pay for time that employees are required to stay on company property during lunch breaks.

The decision came four years after the court ruled unanimously that employers like Apple who search their workers’ bags when they go home must pay them for the time spent on the search. Monday’s ruling went further and required compensation for time spent driving to a security checkout, searches of the employee and vehicle and meal breaks that must be spent at the office.

“An employee who is subject to the control of an employer does not have to be working during that time to be compensated,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote in the 7-0 ruling. While state law does not entitle employees to be paid for time commuting to and from work, Liu said, driving from work to a security gate, and being searched before leaving, is not part of commuting.

The ruling particularly affects workers in construction, mining and other industries that search people entering and leaving the premises to make sure they are employees and are not taking equipment with them. The company in this case, CSI Electrical Contractors, employs construction workers at a solar power facility on private land in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties.

At least 1,000 workers at CSI go through the daily security checks, and similar suits are pending against other companies in California, said Peter Kindem, lawyer for an employee who challenged the company’s denial of compensation. With cars lined up at the security gate, the employee said it took 10 to 15 minutes to travel from the gate to the parking lot, and anywhere from five to 30 minutes to drive back to the gate and be searched.

“There are many employer-mandated security processes that are unpaid for,” Kindem said after the ruling. “We’re attempting to protect workers’ rights to be paid for all hours worked.”

A lawyer for the company could not be reached for comment. Attorney George Howard, who has represented employers in other cases for more than 40 years, said the ruling, while unfavorable for employers, offered some guidance on reducing their liability.

Companies “should review the specific workplace to reduce so far as possible the time required for employees to exit the workplace and the amount of ‘control’ imposed on the exiting employees,” Howard told the Chronicle. And to avoid another half hour of pay, he said, “do not control employees’ activities during their off-duty meal periods.”

CSI’s contract with its workers’ labor union included an unpaid half-hour meal break each day. But the court said California’s minimum wage law applies to any time in which an employee is prohibited from leaving the workplace.

“Even at remote worksites, there is a meaningful difference between being required to eat at one’s workstation or in a designated meal area and being allowed to return to one’s personal vehicle or take a walk,” Liu said.

Although the court cited the state’s minimum wage law, which currently requires pay of $16 an hour, Kindem said he would argue for compensation at the workers’ regular pay scale for lunch periods when they were prohibited from leaving.

The case is Huerta v. CSI, No. S275431.

Reach Bob Egelko: begelko@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @BobEgelko

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), workplace violence is the second leading cause of fatal occupational injuries in the United States, affecting nearly 2 million American workers annually. SB 553 addresses workplace violence by requiring employers to implement basic protections to protect employees while at work.

On September 20, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 553 (“SB 553”) into law, which requires California employers to take steps to prevent and respond to workplace violence. Notably, effective July 1, 2024, SB 553 requires covered employers to create a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan. Employers must also review and update their workplace violence prevention plans on an annual basis and provide an evaluation of the incidents that occurred and maintain records of workplace violence hazards previously identified.

In addition, employers must maintain a log of all incidents of workplace violence even if the incident did not result in injury. This log must include information on every workplace violence incident, based on employee statements, witness statements, and investigation findings.

Employers must provide also effective training and ensure that training materials are easy to understand and match the workers’ education, reading skills, and language. • Employers must provide employees with an initial training and annually thereafter.

Violence Prevention Plan Resources

Register for the Active Violence Emergency Response Training at North Coast Builders Exchange. Classes offered in April, May, and June. Register here!

Model Written Workplace Violence Prevention Plan: http://dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/Model-WPV-Plan-General-Industry.docx

Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry – Information for Employers: http://dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/WPV-General-Industry-for-employers-fs.pdf

Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry – Information for Employees: http://dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/WPV-General-Industry-for-workers-fs.pdf

Capitol Connection Q&A for Contractors

By Shauna Krause, President, Capitol Services, Inc.

The prevailing wind is hot and not for an HVAC contractor hoping to grow new work in NV. Reciprocal isn’t the same as equivalent, yet there is an expert course to level the difference. The solution is a little more straight-forward to another contractor and, no pun intended, a final answer on bankruptcy…

Q: I’ve had a “C-20” (HVAC) license in California and one of my clients who has locations in Nevada wants me to do some work for them over there. He was telling me the licenses are reciprocal so I shouldn’t have to take any exams. I thought I would check with you first to make sure that’s accurate before I dive in. Can you tell me if getting licensed over there is as easy as he makes it sound?

A:  There is a limited reciprocal agreement between CA and NV. The classification system in Nevada is not equivalent to California’s and therefore the licenses are not automatically recognized as reciprocal. California’s “C-20” license for example is equivalent to Nevada’s “C-21B” license, which is a sub-category of their full “C-21” license. There is no reciprocity for the sub-category classifications. In order to qualify for a waiver of the “C-21” Trade exam in Nevada, you would have had to have passed both the CA “C-20” and the “C-4” (Boilers) exams, and held those licenses actively for the previous four years. So to answer your question, no, obtaining a license in Nevada is not as easy as you were told. We can help with the process though so give me a call if you decide to move forward!

Q: Can I have two Sole Proprietorship licenses, each with different business names? I have multiple classifications and I want to start promoting and advertising for specific trades and have the business name line up with that particular trade.

A: Yes you can! You are on the right track as most of the time I get licensees wanting to operate with multiple business names under the same license number, which is not permitted. As long as you do as you described, and obtain separate licenses with the separate business names, you are good to go!

Q: I had a contractor’s license for my corporation which expired a couple of years ago. I filed for personal bankruptcy last year. I would like to get my license back, but have it just as a personal/Sole Owner license. Will the bankruptcy affect my ability to get licensed again?

A: A bankruptcy, in and of itself, does not prevent you from being able to get licensed. There is a question on the new license application asking whether you have failed to resolve any outstanding final liabilities, which includes taxes, penalties, interest, and any fees assessed by the CSLB, the DIR, EDD, FTB, and BOE. If you have to answer ‘yes’ to this question, the CSLB requires that you provide an explanation and indicate a payment plan or whatever the case may be, but as long as you can answer ‘no’, you should be fine with moving forward.

While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write us at Capitol Services, Inc., 3609 Bradshaw Rd, Ste H, #343, Sacramento, CA 95827. Search past columns at www.cutredtape.com