Curtis cited a 2003 9th Circuit case in which the Court of Appeals ruled that a right to overtime had not been anticipated by the LMRA (Gregory v. SCIE, LLC). In this case, the court found that Section 510 of the California Labor Act established what “overtime” was, and the claim was therefore based on the interpretation of California law and not on a CBA. As the analysis did not require interpretation by the KNA, the claims were not made in advance. Curtis said the court should follow its own precedent and decide again that overtime claims are not anticipated by federal law. In the past, California has seen numerous disputes regarding this two-part test, both in federal and national courts. Indeed, we have seen that this type of dispute has its origin in the national standard of division of labour, with a large number of different results based on the facts and the legislation in force. The problem reappeared in the Curtis case, this time with regard to the application of national legislation on overtime. This case confirms that Section 514 of the Labor Act allows employers and unions to define overtime in a collective agreement without violating California`s daily overtime requirements. The 9th circle, however, found that Gregory was determined about this without the usefulness of Californian affairs. It then reviewed the applicable laws and case law on overtime compensation before making a final decision.
After the plaintiff`s assertion that the ASCs did not meet the requirements of the Labor Code, Section 514, was dismissed in depth, the 9th Circuit found that his right to overtime pay was controlled by its ASAs because Section 510 of the Labor Code was not applicable. A negotiated overtime clause regulates mandatory and voluntary overtime practices and describes how disciplinary action is taken in the event of repeated violations of overtime rules. For example, employees with the highest level of activity may first be offered overtime or have a first right of refusal for mandatory overtime. Under federal law, workers must be paid for all overtime they work, even if the employer does not authorize overtime. App. 22 January 2014). Based on the plain language of Section 514, its legislative history, and the guidelines of the California Department of Labor Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), the Vranish Court rejected the workers` attempt to import the daily overtime obligation into their collective agreement and upheld a summary judgment in favor of the employer. . . .
- No categories