Supreme Court Rules Rest Periods May Not Involve “On-call” Duties
January 3, 2017

Compliance Bulletin

The California Supreme Court held that “on-call” rest periods are impermissible under Labor Code Section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission wage order no. 4-2001. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. the Court held that the applicable standard for rest periods is the same for meal periods: employers must relieve the employee of all duty and relinquish any employer control over the employee and how he or she spends the time. Thus an employer may not compel employees to remain on call during rest periods. Employers have the option to provide employees with another rest period to replace one that was interrupted, or pay the premium pay, but these options should be the exception rather than the rule to be used in unexpected circumstances. See CBA’s Regulatory Compliance Bulletin for more information.