Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 86563–9.,86563–9.
• Citation: 287 P.3d 516,175 Wash.2d 822
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION, on behalf of certain of the employees it represents; and Vivian Mae Hill, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.

175 Wash.2d 822

287 P.3d 516

WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION, on behalf of certain of the employees it represents; and Vivian Mae Hill, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioners,

v.SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.

No. 86563–9.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued May 8, 2012.

Oct. 25, 2012.

David Charles Campbell, Carson Glickman–Flora, Dmitri L. Iglitzin, Schwerin Campbell Barnard & Iglitzin LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.

Paula Lee Lehmann, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Bellevue, WA, Michael John Killeen, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Eleanor Hamburger, Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for American Nurses Association.

James P. Mills, Office of the Attorney General—Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, amicus counsel for Department of Labor and Industries.

Timothy J. O'Connell, Karin Dwelle Jones, Stoel Rives LLP, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Franciscan Health System, Multicare Health System, Washington State Hospital Association.

Aaron M. Streepy, James Gerard McGuinness, McGuinness & Streepy Law Office L.L.C., Federal Way, WA, amicus counsel for United Food and Commercial Workers Locals 21 and 141.

Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, Stephen Kirk Festor, Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Washington Employment Lawyers Association.

Martin S. Garfinkel, Adam J. Berger, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Washington State Labor Council and SEIU Healthcare 1199NW.

MADSEN, C.J.

[175 Wash.2d 825]¶ 1 Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) seeks overtime pay pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act (MWA), RCW 49.46.130, for work performed by the approximately 1,200 registered nurses employed by Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, Washington. Sacred Heart, at all times pertinent to this lawsuit, was obligated by its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with WSNA to provide its nurses with a paid 15 minute block rest period each four hour work period. The parties do not dispute that when a rest period was missed, Sacred Heart provided the nurses with the equivalent of 30 minutes of straight time compensation: the 15 minutes they would have received had they merely rested as well as 15 additional minutes for instead working during the period.

¶ 2 Relying on a Washington industrial welfare regulation, WAC 296–126–092(4), requiring a 10 minute rest period on the employer's time for every four hours worked, along with RCW 49.46.130, the nurses claim they are entitled to overtime pay, not just the straight pay they already received, for 10 of the 15 minutes of each rest period they missed. Because they claim they were entitled to 10 minutes of overtime (paid at a rate of time and one-half), the nurses contend they were underpaid the equivalent of 5 minutes of straight time for each missed break. Nurses rely heavily on Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 146 Wash.2d 841, 50 P.3d 256 (2002), where this court found that an employer's failure to provide a required 10 minute rest break extended the workday by 10 minutes. This case hinges on how “hours worked” are calculated: whether the 15 minutes nurses spent working through their breaks should be added to or substitutedfor the 15 minutes they would have spent at rest.

¶ 3 We hold that both the missed opportunity to rest and the additional labor nurses provide constitute “hours worked.” Even though Sacred Heart did not require the nurses to physically remain at the hospital after the end of the workday to make up their rest periods, nurses are entitled to overtime compensation because they provided additional labor to Sacred Heart.

¶ 4 We reinstate the trial court's order awarding damages, attorney fees, and costs to WSNA. However, we reverse the award of double damages ordered by the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 5 In 2004, WSNA filed a grievance because Sacred Heart did not consistently provide two CBA-mandated 15 minute rest breaks during an eight hour workday. In 2006, an arbitrator resolved the dispute in favor of WSNA. Sacred Heart had failed to keep records of the missed rest periods, so the arbitrator also ordered that the nurses complete sworn affidavits indicating how many rest periods they had missed between January 2005 and May 2006. The nurses received from Sacred Heart an additional 15 minutes of straight time, without interest, for each break missed. The arbitrator also ordered that Sacred Heart provide nurses with the required rest periods going forward.

¶ 6 Since approximately June 2006, nurses who cannot take a rest period complete a “Missed Break Request” form and submit it to a nurse manager or payroll department. Using these forms, Sacred Heart timekeepers make notations in the electronic timekeeping system. Sacred Heart compensates these missed breaks in straight time, not overtime. Thus, when a nurse works through one 15 minute break while completing an eight hour shift, he or she receives the equivalent of 8.25 hours of straight pay for that day.

¶ 7 WSNA brought this action against Sacred Heart to determine whether Sacred Heart should have provided nurses overtime pay for their additional labor. Before the trial court made its ruling, Sacred Heart removed the case to federal court because it believed the lawsuit implicated the CBA and federal law. See Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., No. CV–08–0054–EFS, 2008 WL 1969732, at *1 (E.D.Wash. May 5, 2008) (unpublished). WSNA responded that its claims were based exclusively on the MWA and would not require interpretation of the CBA. Id. The federal district court agreed with WSNA, concluded there was no federal jurisdiction, and remanded the matter to state court. Id.

¶ 8 Upon remand, the trial court found,

[c]onsistent with the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 146 Wash.2d 841, 849, 50 P.3d 256 (2002), Vivian Mae Hill and the nurses represented by WSNA ... who worked through their rest periods provided their employer Sacred Heart Medical Center (SHMC) with additional time worked. Although SHMC provides nurses with a 15–minute rest period for each four hours of work, state law requires only a 10–minute rest period. Therefore, for purposes of this case, ten minutes of nurses' missed rest break is at issue here and must [be] compensated at the appropriate time and one-half rate of a nurse's “regular rate of pay” when it results in overtime pursuant to RCW 49.46.130.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 921. The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff WSNA, concluding that Sacred Heart owed WSNA $52,361.41 in compensation and prejudgment interest, $52,361.41 in double damages for a willful violation, $200,000 in attorney fees, and $22,545.42 in expenses, for a total judgment of $327,268.24. Id. at 1559–60.

¶ 9 The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the lawsuit. Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 163 Wash.App. 272, 282, 258 P.3d 96 (2011). The court reasoned that the forgone rest periods are more accurately viewed as providing the employer with additional labor during the workday than as an extension of the workday. Id. at 281, 258 P.3d 96. The Court of Appeals concluded that “entitlement to time and one-half under the MWA turns on the amount of time an employee is actuallyrequired to spend at the prescribed workplace, with no reference to a number of hours she or he is ‘deemed’ to have worked.” Id.

ANALYSIS

¶ 10 This dispute was resolved by summary judgment, the material facts are undisputed, and the questions presented are all questions of law. For these reasons, our review is de novo. Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wash.2d 521, 530–31, 70 P.3d 126 (2003).

[175 Wash.2d 829]¶ 11 RCW 49.46.130(1) provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his or her employees for a work week longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his or her employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed.

According to WAC 296–126–092(4), “Employees shall be allowed a rest period of not less than ten minutes, on the employer's time, for each four hours of working time.... No employee shall be required to work more than three hours without a rest period.” “ ‘Hours worked’ shall be considered to mean all hours during which the employee is authorized or required by the employer to be on duty on the employer's premises or at a prescribed work place.” WAC 296–126–002(8). “An analysis of ‘hours worked’ must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts.” Wash. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Admin. Policy ES.C.2 § 1, at 1. Under federal law, rest periods “must be counted as hours worked” and “may not be offset against other working time.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.18; see also Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 141 Wash.2d 517, 525, 7 P.3d 807 (2000) (this court may consider the Code of Federal Regulations as persuasive authority when construing provisions of the MWA).

¶ 12 This court's decision in Wingert frames the issue presented here. In Wingert, 146 Wash.2d at 845–46, 849, 50 P.3d 256, the employer required its employees to immediately begin two-hour overtime shifts after completing their normal shift, without a break to separate the two shifts, in violation of an Industrial Welfare Act (IWA) (chapter 49.12 RCW) regulation, WAC 296–126–092(4). The court found,

[e]mployees who must work through their overtime break are, in effect, providing Yellow Freight with an additional 10 minutes of labor during the first two hours of their overtime assignments. When the employees are not provided with the mandated rest period, their workday is extended by 10 minutes. Taking the regulation into account, the employees are entitled to be compensated by Yellow Freight for 2 hours and 10 minutes of work.

Id. at 849, 50 P.3d...