Gerber Prods. Co. v. Hewitt
Decision Date | 26 May 2016 |
Docket Number | No. CV–15–966,CV–15–966 |
Citation | 492 S.W.3d 856,2016 Ark. 222 |
Parties | Gerber Products Company d/b/a Nestlé Infant Nutrition d/b/a Nestlé Nutrition USA d/b/a Nestlé Nutrition USA–Infant Nutrition d/b/a Nestlé Nutrition USA–Performance Nutrition, Appellant v. David Hewitt II et al., Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Appellees |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Little Rock, by: E.B. Chiles IV and Joseph R. Falasco, for appellant.
Holleman & Associates, P.A., Little Rock, by: John Holleman and Timothy A. Steadman ; and Byars, Hickey & Hall, P.L.L.C., Fort Smith, by: Joe D. Byars, Jr., for appellees.
KAREN R. BAKER
, Associate Justice
Appellant, Gerber Products Company d/b/a Nestlé Infant Nutrition d/b/a Nestlé Nutrition USA d/b/a Nestlé Nutrition USA–Infant Nutrition d/b/a Nestlé Nutrition USA–Performance Nutrition (“Gerber”) appeals the Sebastian County Circuit Court's January 23, 2015 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellees in their case alleging Gerber's liability for failure to pay certain overtime wages in violation of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), Arkansas Code Annotated sections 11–4–201 et seq.
Appellees are employed by Gerber at its baby food processing and manufacturing facility located in Fort Smith, Arkansas (“employees”). On June 6, 2012, the employees filed a class action complaint against Gerber in the Sebastian County Circuit Court.1 The employees sought relief from Gerber's custom and practice of not fully compensating its employees for all the time the employees spent working at the facility, in violation of the AMWA. Specifically, the employees alleged that Gerber failed to compensate the employees for their time spent donning and doffing clothing and protective gear, sanitizing clothing and equipment, washing their hands, and walking to and from their work stations.2 The employees asserted that these activities were necessary and indispensable to their principal work, but the employees were not compensated. This action was brought on behalf of hourly employees who are nonexempt from the overtime requirements of the AMWA and who were, are, or will be employed by Gerber at any time within three years prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of final disposition of the action, and who were, are, or will be required by Gerber to perform donning and doffing activities without compensation. The employees alleged the following facts regarding their tasks prior to beginning their shifts: upon arrival, the employees walk through an electronic turnstile which is activated by the employees swiping their security cards; the security turnstile records the time when the employee swipes the card; after going through the turnstile, the employees are required to walk to the locker rooms and change into the uniforms supplied by Gerber and to change into shoes that are required to be kept at the facility; after changing into their uniforms, the employees are required to use a lint roller on their clothing, don protective gear such as hairnets, beard nets, ear plugs, and bump caps, and wash their hands; the employees are then required to walk a significant distance to clock in. At the completion of their shifts, the employees are required to clock out prior to doffing the protective clothing. The employees alleged that as a result of the mandatory donning and doffing activities, they were frequently required to work in excess of forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation at a rate of at least one and a half times their regular rate of pay.3
In August 2014, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The employees argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Gerber did not pay the employees for their time spent donning, doffing, washing, walking, and waiting. To support its motion for summary judgment, Gerber relied on collective-bargaining agreements between Gerber and Lodge 260 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (“Union”), which represented the employees during the negotiation process. During the 2010 labor negotiations, the Union proposed an amendment to Article 11.3 of the collective-bargaining agreement to require Gerber to compensate the employees for “18 minutes per day for donning and doffing.” However, this request was removed from the 2010–2013 collective-bargaining agreement and the time spent donning and doffing was treated as noncompensable. In 2013, the Union requested compensation for “30 minutes per day for donning and doffing.” The 2013–2016 collective bargaining agreement was ratified and included a provision treating donning and doffing time as compensable. Article 6.13 of the 2013–2016 collective-bargaining agreement states as follows:
Both parties' motions for summary judgment were initially denied. However, on November 3, 2014, a hearing was held on the cross-motions for summary judgment, and the circuit court orally announced from the bench that it was changing its earlier order in favor of the employees. On January 23, 2015, the circuit court entered a written order granting the employees' motion for partial summary judgment as to Gerber's liability for failure to pay certain overtime wages. Specifically, the circuit court found that the AMWA requires Gerber to “treat the time required by employees to complete the mandatory donning and doffing activities at issue in this lawsuit as compensable work time, notwithstanding any contrary custom or practice under a collective bargaining agreement applicable to those employees or any express agreement.” Further, the circuit court found that the AMWA does not incorporate the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 203(o) exception for donning and doffing. The circuit court specifically found as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Echols v. State
-
Hendrix v. Alcoa, Inc., CV–15–558
...The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Gerber Prods. Co. v. Hewitt , 2016 Ark. 222, 492 S.W.3d 856. Statutes relating to the same subject must be construed together and in harmony, if possible. Hammerhead Contracting & Dev., LLC v. ......
-
Browne v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc.
...[the Arkansas Supreme Court] typically looked to analogous federal statutes and federal precedent." Gerber Prods. Co. v. Hewitt , 492 S.W.3d 856, 865–66 (Ark. 2016) (Wood, J. dissenting), superseded by statute , Act of Apr. 5, 2017, sec. 5. In Gerber , the Arkansas Supreme Court declined to......
-
Esry v. P.F. Chang's Bistro, Inc.
...Court addressed when a different interpretation of the AMWA and related regulations is clearly required in Gerber Prods. Co. v. Hewitt II, 2016 Ark. 222, 492 S.W.3d 856. In Gerber, a group of employees sought unpaid overtime wages under the AMWA. Id. at 1, 492 S.W.3d at 858. Specifically, t......
-
Act 914, HB 1846 – TO AMEND AND CLARIFY THE MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY
...Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, 11-4-201 et seq., as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Gerber Products Company v. Hewitt, 2016 Ark. 222, 492 S.W.3d SECTION 2. Arkansas Code 11-4-205 is amended to read as follows: 11-4-205. Right of collective bargaining not affected. Nothing in......