According to a federal district court in Wisconsin, the answer is yes. The court found that a meat-processing plant had to pay its employees for the time they spent putting on and taking off items of federally and plant-required safety and sanitation equipment. Even though the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the employees did not guarantee compensation, the employees had contended that they were entitled to it because the donning and doffing of equipment constitutes “work” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The company tracked its employees' hours of work using time clocks, which were located throughout the plant—typically right outside the "production area." Employees clocked in just before entering the production area and clocked out for meals and at the end of their shift.

Under federal law and company policy, employees who worked in the production area had to wear various items of "personal protective equipment," which included a hard hat or bump cap, steel-toed shoes or sanitation boots, ear plugs, hair/beard nets, safety glasses, a freezer coat (if necessary), gloves, plastic gloves, paper or cotton frock or plastic apron, sleeves and slickers. Employees had to put on some of these items in a locker room before clocking in. Then, on their way to clocking in, employees put on additional accessories (ear plugs, hairnets) that were kept in bins near the locker room. All of these items were owned by the company and stored at the plant. Although it was not stated by either party, it was presumed that the process was reversed at the end of the shift.

Although the FLSA includes many different provisions, the court said, its core requirement can be reduced to the simple and now uncontroversial proposition that employers must pay their employees a wage for all of the “work” that they do. While the FLSA does not define "work," the court noted that a commonly cited Supreme Court decision determined the definition of “work” to be “physical or mental exertion controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.”

Cite: Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc (WDWis 2007) 155 LC ¶35,382.