Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Page 3
California Supreme Court:
Specific Wage Order Takes Precedence Over General Statute
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court held yesterday that an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order allowing health care employees on shifts exceeding 12 hours to waive their second lunch takes precedence over a Labor Code provision generally providing to the contrary.
Justice Goodwin Liu delivered the high court’s opinion rejecting the argument by a group of health care workers—who had waived in writing their entitlement to the second meal period they otherwise would have been afforded in their long shifts—that the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage order is in violation of Labor Code §512(a) which sets forth the rules for meal periods.
Under that statute, an employee working a shift longer than 10 hours is entitled to two 30-minute lunch breaks; waiver is explicitly allowed in shifts lasting no longer than 12 hours.
PAGA Action
The plaintiffs brought the case against their former employer, Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, under the Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act; the hospital won summary judgment; in the plaintiffs’ initial appeal, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed; granting review, the high court remanded the case to Div. Three to consider legislation enacted in response to its prior opinion; it changed its mind and affirmed the trial court.
The intervening legislation included the amending of Labor Code §516(b), which provides that “[n]otwithstanding…any other law,” the wage orders in question “were valid and enforceable on and after October 1, 2000, and continue to be valid and enforceable,” adding:
“This subdivision is declarative of, and clarifies, existing law.”
Lui’s Opinion
The plaintiffs’ position, Lui said, “ignores the broad sweep of the phrase ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’ ”
He declared:
“Read literally, the ‘notwithstanding’ phrase undoubtedly gives broad powers to the IWC. That literal reading makes sense in this context. The Legislature’s broad delegation to the IWC is consistent with its recognition that the IWC is constitutionally authorized (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 1), and has been long understood to have the power, to adopt rules nearly co-equal to legislative enactments.”
The case is Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, 2018 S.O.S. 5824.
Century City attorney Mark Yablonovich was joined by Glenn A. Danas, Robert K. Friedl, Arlene M. Turinchak and Ryan H. Wu of the Century City firm in representing the plaintiffs. Richard J. Simmons, Derek R. Havel, Daniel J. McQueen, Robert J. Stumpf Jr., and Karin Dougan Vogel of the Los Angeles office of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton acted for the hospital.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company