Mireles v Frio Foods

Mireles v Frio Foods - Mireles v Frio Foods Inc 899 F.2d...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc . 899 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1990). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs worked on an assembly line at a frozen food packaging facility operated by defendant Frio Foods, Inc. ("Frio"). They appeal the trial court's decision that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")… does not require Frio to pay them for idle time of less than fifteen minutes or more than forty-five minutes. Plaintiffs also appeal the trial court's decision to limit liquidated damages to $ 1,000.00 under 29 U.S.C. § 260…Frio cross- appeals that part of the decision entitling plaintiffs to compensation for idle time that is between fifteen minutes and forty-five minutes. Frio also cross-appeals the liquidated damages award [arguing, that no liquidated damages should have been awarded]. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The plaintiffs in this case are thirty-four current or former employees of defendant, Frio, who worked on an assembly line at Frio's frozen food packaging facility. The plaintiffs were paid the minimum wage…for each recorded hour of work. The assembly line workers, including the plaintiffs, worked in crews. There were as many as one hundred employees in certain crews. The crews, in turn, were divided into groups. The time worked by a group was recorded on a master time card that was controlled by Frio. Each employee's pay was based on the hours recorded on the master time card. Generally, Frio ran a day shift and a night shift. At times, a third "middle shift" was used. At the end of each crew's shift, Frio informed the members of that crew the time that they were expected to report to work the next day. Normally, the day shift was directed to report at 8:00 a.m. and the night shift was told to report at 4:30 p.m. At times, Frio would become aware that work would not be ready to begin at these scheduled times. In such instances, Frio would attempt to notify the workers to report at a later time. The later starting times would usually be on the hour, that is, 9:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., or 6:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m. or the like. When assembly line employees arrived at the Frio plant, they were required to sign their names on a sign-in sheet. This sign-in sheet did not identify the time at which the employees arrived at work. At times, employees would arrive at work at the scheduled starting time and would sign the sign-in sheet but would be required to wait until produce was available before actually beginning productive work. Until the employees began laboring on the assembly line, they were not "clocked in" on the master time card by their supervisor. Because they were not "on the clock," Frio did not pay them for this waiting time. In addition, during the day, work would stop occasionally because of a delay in the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/18/2008 for the course ILRCB 2010 taught by Professor Lieberwitzr during the Spring '07 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 8

Mireles v Frio Foods - Mireles v Frio Foods Inc 899 F.2d...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online