See how Hernandez v. Pacific Bell clarifies when California employees must be paid for commuting in company vehicles. Get clarity on the control and ‘hours worked’ tests that decide if drive time in employer cars counts as compensable work.
By Brad Nakase, Attorney
Email | Call (888) 600-8654
Have a quick question? I answered nearly 1500 FAQs.
If you’ve ever wondered, “Should I be on the clock while driving a company vehicle?”, a recent California court case helps clarify that question.
The California Court of Appeals made it clear in Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company when workers should be paid for using corporate cars for commuting.
Background: The plaintiffs were technicians who worked for the respondent, Pacific Bell (Pacific Bell Telephone Company), both now and in the past. The workers installed and maintained television and internet services in clients’ homes as a component of their employment responsibilities.
Pacific Bell started its extra HDP (Home Dispatch Program) in 2009, which permits technicians to drive corporate cars home rather than back to the Pacific Bell facility. Throughout the HDP, personnel drove business cars loaded with equipment and tools to and from their homes every day. Both the time used driving to the initial worksite in the early hours and the time used driving home following their final appointment were not reimbursed to the HDP personnel. Every employee implicated in the lawsuit took part in the HDP.
The central issue was: “Should I be on the clock while driving a company vehicle?”, specifically, during commutes between home and the first or last job site.
The workers filed a lawsuit against Pacific Bell, claiming they were entitled to reimbursement for the period of time they spent driving between their residences and the client’s residence in a business car that was laden with equipment and tools.
Motions for adjudication or summary judgment were submitted by both parties. In doing so, the employer contended that while involvement in the HDP was optional, payment for commuting in a work car was only necessary if commuting was essential. Pacific Bell’s request for summary adjudication was granted by the trial court, which concurred with the employer. The workers filed an appeal.
The key legal question boiled down to this: “Should I be on the clock while driving a company vehicle?” The court had to decide whether this commute time qualified as “hours worked” under California law.
The Court of Appeal noted at the outset of its analysis that workers must be paid for “hours worked.” The court went on to say that “hours worked” refers to the amount of time an employee is either (1) under the employer’s control or (2) allowed to be on the job, whether or not they are obligated to.
We must analyze the “control” test. A company can make it mandatory to use a specific mode of transportation to reach the place of work. The workers will be subject to the company’s control. Therefore, “hours worked” includes commuting time on employer-mandated transportation. Since the HDP was optional, the appellate court followed that rule and determined that Pacific Bell wasn’t requiring the employees to use specific modes of transportation. Thus, in the control test, HDP commuting time was not considered “hours worked.”
The answer to “Should I be on the clock while driving a company vehicle?” was ‘no’ under the control test.
Second, in terms of the “suffer or permit” requirement, this prong is satisfied when a worker performs certain duties or exercises that the supervisor would consider to be labor. The criteria are applicable even in situations where the worker is not under the employer’s control, such as when the boss is aware of unapproved overtime.
The employees’ claim that they were working as they drove to and from work in company cars equipped with equipment and tools was rejected by the court. The court observed that workers were not suffering or allowed to work because they were not exerting effort when moving around alongside the tools and equipment. Consequently, the “suffer or permit” component did not apply to HDP commuting time as “hours worked.”
The answer to “Should I be on the clock while driving a company vehicle?” remained no.
The court upheld the trial court’s ruling. It concluded that the workers’ commutes in company cars full of machinery and tools were not compensable time.
This ruling defined when workers must be compensated for using corporate cars for commuting. It may help employers. If an employee is: (1) using a specific mode of transportation mandated by the business; or (2) putting in effort on duties that a supervisor would consider work, they must be paid for commuting in corporate vehicles. Therefore, it is insufficient to be considered as “compensable time” to simply commute in a work car packed with tools and equipment.
This case establishes an important precedent for California employers and employees asking, “Should I be on the clock while driving a company vehicle?”
Notably, according to California law, a worker’s time spent traveling to and from work in a car provided by their employer may be counted as hours worked, provided that the vehicle is not utilized for ridesharing, as that term is explained in the Vehicle Code’s Section 522 (California Labor Code Section 510 b).
Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.
See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment Law
Most recent blogs:
Contact our attorney.