| Issue: |
The events of 9/11 have led to heightened security at many workplaces. At energy plants, airports and some government buildings, checks may include not only requests for ID but also scanners, pat-downs and even vehicle searches. Must employees be paid for time they spend at work entrances passing through detailed security procedures?
|
 |
|
Answer: |
The time is not compensable, at least under normal circumstances. Arguably, delays at a security checkpoint are analogous to time spent donning required protective clothing or collecting equipment. Such time generally is compensable because it is a principal job activity that starts the workday. However, a pair of recent cases held that increased security does not increase wage liability, even when the process takes several minutes.
In one case, workers at a nuclear power plant sought pay for time they spent waiting in traffic outside the plant entrance, a badge inspection and visual check of car contents, parking and walking to a command post, waiting to go through various detectors, and then waiting again to swipe their ID badge. In the other case, construction workers worked for a subcontractor at an airport terminal project. They could walk or take a van from parking areas to a checkpoint. There, they had to show their badges, as well as their hard hats, goggles, boots and other equipment, which they had to take on a bus to the actual jobsite.
Clearly, the time spent waiting, traveling and passing through security was an indispensable part of the job. Employees had to go through the procedure in order to work. However, a principal activity that starts the pay clock must be both “integral and indispensable” to the job.
For the workers at the nuclear power plant, the court stressed that the security check was not an integral part of the work the employees performed. This time was more akin to travel time, which generally is not compensable, than it was to donning gear required to do a job safely. Also, security checks were required for other visitors, not just employees. In the airport situation, the court decided that security was not an integral part of the job because it was required by the government and was not primarily for the benefit of employing contractors.
Cite: Gorman v. The Consolidated Edison Corp (2dCir 2007) 154 LC ¶35,296; Bonilla v. Baker Construction, Inc (11thCir 2007) 154 LC ¶35,297; CCH Wage & Hour Compliance Guide ¶847.
|
