Transferring a group of workers from one company to another is not a “mass layoff” requiring 60 days notice under the Labor Code.

A reader writes:

I read your blog often, and I was surprised not to see an entry on the White case, where the Supreme Court will interpret the what adverse employment action is.

I’m not going to act like I have been all over everything lately, and I’ve let a few things slip by me (see my no-I-didn’t-yes-we-did on Ragingwire below, only to see it depublished). But it’s not that I haven’t seen that case. A few things, especially for new readers:

• I deliberately don’t blog federal cases; other sites do that better than I could even spending twice as much time. If you practice in California, you should worry about California rules first, anyway.
• Yes, sometimes federal cases inform California cases, or are even considered binding authority on a question. It’s up in the air often enough whether that will be the case, however.
• No decision has been issued in this one yet anyway.
• I deliberately also don’t blog every case. Unless I see it providing something meaningful (and it might be to you and not me) it won’t be here.

If and until it is de-published, we have a live, published Court of Appeal opinion on the wage/penalty issue in Labor Code section 226.7. There was a draft circulating last Spring on the same point, but the case settled, a DLSE “Precedent Opinion” that the courts ignore, and, of course, the vapor regs. On December 2, 2005, the Court of Appeal issued this opinion in Murphy. This Opinion squarely rejects the federal Courts’ interpretations in, e.g., Tomlinson.

We disagree with the district court judge’s interpretation. While the Labor Code allows employers to require overtime work, albeit at a higher rate of compensation, it does not allow employers to deny meal and rest breaks.21 The payments imposed by the wage order and section 226.7 are not compensation for the missed 10 or 30 minute rest or meal break, but are fixed at one additional hour of pay. That payment is not compensation for labor performed, but is an arbitrary amount imposed on the employer in addition to the salary already paid during the time the employee was not eating or not resting.22 It is not overtime pay for an allowed work period, but a penalty for violating the law that prohibits work during those times. [Slip Op. at 25-26]

It’s also worth a read for overtime/exempt and other wage hour issues.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A107219.PDF

A recent Gallup poll places lawyers above union leaders, senators, business executives, stockbrokers, car salesman, and telemarketers in terms of the public’s perception of our ethics. 

I am in Colorado this week for yet another NITA conference.  Posting will continue to be light through the New Year.

Apropos of that post below on Ross v. Ragingwire, the California Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal on the matter. Via EMPLOYMENT LAW NEWS.