IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez Legal Analysis

Document Sample
IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez Legal Analysis Powered By Docstoc
					                                        IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez   1

Running head: IBP, INC. V. GABRIEL ALVAREZ




                     IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez Legal Analysis
                                                 IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez                         2


                                    IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez

       The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) was passed into a law to help regular pay

and hours worked. This act also sets the standards for the minimum age for workers (Bennett-

Alexander & Hartman, 2007). IBP & Inc. v. Alvarez (2005) discusses whether FLSA provides

coverage on the employer's premises to and from the location of the employees' "principal

activity or activities" and activities that are” “preliminary or postliminary" to principal activities.

                                          Statement of Facts

       IBP, inc. v. Alvarez involved hourly employees who worked in the slaughter and

processing divisions of a meat packaging plant in Pasco, Washington (IBP & Inc. v. Alvarez,

2005). The employees were paid from the arrival of the first piece of meat at their workstations

to the departure of the last piece of meat from their workstations. The production workers were

also required to wear protective gear. The employees were required to store their protective gear

in company locker rooms, where most employees “donned” and “doffed” the protective gear.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Alvarez case to review the district

court's holding (affirmed by the Ninth Circuit) that, for employees who were required to don and

doff exclusive protective gear, the time spent by such employees walking between the locker

rooms and the production floor was compensable under the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938

(FLSA) (IBP & Inc. v. Alvarez, 2005).


                                         Employment Issue

       The primary employment issue in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez is a compensation issue in

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
                                                  IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez                         3


                                             Laws Applied

        The Supreme Court applied and examined FLSA, prior cases and the Portal to Portal Act

of 1947 to address this case. The Supreme Court examined the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 and

stated that the “principal activity or activities" in the Portal-to-Portal Act covers all activities

which are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities. The Supreme Court also

agreed with the Ninth Circuit that, under the facts of the case at hand, the donning and doffing of

distinctive protective gear constituted a "principal activity" within the meaning of the Portal-to-

Portal Act because it was "integral and indispensable" to the employees' work (IBP & Inc. v.

Alvarez, 2005).

                               Standards of Conduct & Future Impact

        The IBP & Inc. v. Alvarez, 2005 decision sets the standard of conduct for employers that.

under FLSA and the Portal to Portal Act, time spent walking and waiting after donning and

before doffing unique protective gear are compensable activities under FLSA and are not

excluded by the portal to portal act (IBP & Inc. v. Alvarez). Future impact implies that

employers should also consult counsel to determine what pre- and post-shift activities, other than

donning and doffing required protective gear, might constitute a "principal activity" in future

cases to help determine the definitions of what constitutes a "workday" for determining whether

compensation should be paid to the employee. Therefore, any deemed “principal activities”

could impact the financial bottom line of the company.


                                              Conclusion
        In summary, the importance of the decision in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez (2005) covers

employment law in more than just the meat and poultry industries. Employers in all types of

manufacturing industries and any type of industry requiring protective gear could be affected by
                                               IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez                     4
this decision and should avoid violations by adhering to the compensation standards set forth by

this case.
                                            IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez                  5

                                         References

Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2007). Show Me the Money. In Employment Law

       for Business (5th ed., pp. 747-749). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez 546 U.S. 2005
                                         IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez              6

If you need to type anything after the reference list then start it on this page

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:375
posted:3/12/2010
language:English
pages:6
Description: The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) was passed into a law to help regular pay and hours worked. This act also sets the standards for the minimum age for workers (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). IBP & Inc. v. Alvarez (2005) discusses whether FLSA provides coverage on the employer's premises to and from the location of the employees' "principal activity or activities" and activities that are” “preliminary or postliminary" to principal activities.