Bonillo was one of several workers hired by Baker Concrete to work on constructi
ID: 1153921 • Letter: B
Question
Bonillo was one of several workers hired by Baker Concrete to work on construction at the Miami airport. During construction, airport security required the workers to pass through a security gate and ride in an airport-authorized bus to the site. Baker Concrete paid the workers for being at the site from 7:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. Because of the security requirements, the workers had to arrive at the airport an hour early in order to get to the site on time, and their commute home was extended 15 additional minutes. The workers sued, contending that under the Fair Labor Standards Act they should have been compensated for time spent being transported to and from the employee parking area to the construction site.
CASE QUESTIONS
1. Who prevails and why?
2. Explain your analysis and construct a hypothetical situation in which the losing party may have prevailed.
Explanation / Answer
Answer:- Baker Concrete Construction prevails. There is no relation between the work and the commute, for having compensated for the additional commute, it is important that the commute must be related to the work assigned. In fact this is not the case as the airport security and bus ride are the part of the airport requirements rather than the requirement of Baker Concrete Construction
Answer:- As per FLSA, for having eligibility for being compensated for the commutes, it is important for the employees to have already started being engaged in work related activities similar to the workers would have had already initiated their work before beginning their commute , rather than waiting for assigning the work cite to initiate their work activities. Hypothetically, if the work is initiated by the worker at any off site location before the check point and bus ride, for example a meet related to production, then in this case they could have prevailed.