(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District · Decided May 8, 2013
01. Facts
Kenneth Bluford sought to certify a class in his wage-and-hour action against his employer, Safeway Inc., claiming Safeway failed to provide paid rest periods, earned meal periods, and sufficiently itemized wage statements (216 Cal.App.4th at p. 866). Bluford and the class were truck drivers compensated under an activity-based, piece-rate-style pay system that did not separately pay for rest periods (id. at p. 866). The trial court denied class certification, finding individual issues predominated and that Bluford had not alleged a common wage-statement injury (id. at p. 866).
02. Procedural posture
The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of certification, holding common issues predominated and a common injury was alleged (216 Cal.App.4th at p. 866).
03. Issue
Whether piece-rate (activity-based) employees must be separately compensated for rest periods, and whether the rest-period, meal-period, and wage-statement claims were suitable for class treatment.
Holding
Rest periods must be separately compensated and cannot be folded into a piece-rate or activity-based pay formula; because Safeway’s uniform pay system did not separately pay for rest periods, common issues predominated and the class should have been certified (216 Cal.App.4th at p. 866).
05. Reasoning
Extending Armenta’s no-averaging principle, the court reasoned that rest periods are compensable time that a piece-rate formula does not pay for, so the employer must pay separately for them; a pay plan that compensates only for measured productive activity necessarily fails to pay for rest breaks. Because the alleged violation flowed from a uniform compensation policy, it presented common questions amenable to classwide proof, and the wage-statement claim alleged a common injury, so certification was warranted.
Practice Pointer
Bluford establishes that rest periods of piece-rate and activity-based workers must be separately paid — a potent classwide theory because it turns on a uniform pay formula rather than individual break experiences. Plaintiff’s counsel should target the structure of the pay plan itself; if it pays only for productive activity, rest-period (and nonproductive-time) compensation is missing as a matter of common proof.
06. Open questions
Bluford and Gonzalez prompted statutory codification of separate pay for rest and nonproductive time for piece-rate workers; for current claims, the governing Labor Code provisions control, and Bluford’s significance is as foundational authority and for its class-certification analysis.
Cite this entry
Bluford v. Safeway, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864.
“[Bluford] claims Safeway violated statutory and regulatory laws requiring it to provide its employees with paid rest periods, earned meal periods, and sufficiently itemized wage statements.” — 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 866
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].