Do Not Rely on the Terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement As a Defense to Employee Claims for Overtime, Meal and Rest Periods
Many employers and employees think that once an agreement has been collectively bargained with a union, that is the final word in determining the wages, hours and working conditions in the workplace. Surprisingly, that is not always so.
It is true that a union and employer may bargain over most workplace issues; however, federal law does not allow unions to bargain away “non-negotiable minimum labor standards” established by state law. For example, a collective bargaining agreement cannot waive an employee’s right to collect all overtime pay authorized by the California Labor Code, unless excepted by Labor Code section 514. That section provides that California overtime requirements “do not apply to an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement (CBA) if the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage. Thus, a CBA that only provides premium pay for hours over 40 in a week would not qualify for the exemption because California law requires the payment of overtime for work over eight hours in a day.
The state legislature is explicit that rights conferred as a matter of state law, independent of a CBA, may not be waived. For example, in Valles v Ivy Hill Corp. (9th Cir. 2005) 410 F.3d 1071, the question arose whether, through collective bargaining agreements, employees can agree to meal period conditions that are inconsistent with applicable statutes. After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and legislative history, the court concluded that the state legislature intended that “the substantive provisions mandating meal periods … could not ‘in any way be contravened or set aside by private agreement, whether written, oral or implied’” (quoting Labor Code sections 219 and 226.7).
Again, in Zavala v. Scott Bros. Dairy, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 585, a California Court of Appeal held that rights related to “rest periods and wage-stub itemization” cannot be waived or negotiated, stating that, by the words of Labor Code section 219, “the Legislature has categorically forbidden the modification of any provision of these laws.”
There are exceptions for certain industries such as health care or for public employees. It is important to seek competent legal advice when implementing wage and hour policies or practices.