By Joe Pinchot
The Herald
PITTSBURGH — A federal judge said Thursday that present and former corrections officers at Mercer County Jail are not entitled to back pay for a former contract provision that they attend unpaid roll call prior to beginning their shifts.
U.S. District Court Judge Maurice B. Cohill Jr., Pittsburgh, noted the officers are paid “at well above the minimum wage” and agreed to the provision in their contract.
County officials said roll call was discontinued following an April 16 complaint letter from the guards’ attorney.
Fifty-seven guards sued May 22 alleging they were due hundreds of thousands of dollars. While they were required to show up 10 minutes before their shifts for roll call, “In reality, the 10-minute unpaid roll call is a 15-minute unpaid roll call,” the guards said.
While the contract then in place called for unpaid roll call, the guards claimed it is “compensable” under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act.
The guards also alleged retaliation for a comment made by a county lawyer, but Cohill dismissed it, noting the alleged threat did not prevent the filing of the suit.
The guards later added a count alleging a violation of state law.
The guards pointed out a provision of the Fair Labor Act that says compensable hours include “pre-shift and post-shift activities” in which the employee is on-duty at the workplace.
“However,” Cohill said, “this provision of the FLSA cannot be read in a bubble. We must take into account other applicable provisions of the FLSA and the law’s intended purpose.”
The FLSA protects employees by setting rules under which the minimum wage must be paid and an employee becomes eligible for overtime, he said. The guards did not allege the unpaid time is overtime.
“The facts of this case do not lend themselves to the provisions of the FLSA,” Cohill said.
The guards are not claiming the uncompensated time results in their being paid below the minimum wage, he said.
The “policy behind the FLSA that all employees receive minimum wage for hours worked is fulfilled in this case,” Cohill said. “Given these facts and the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants negotiated this term into their (contract), it would be logical for us to conclude ... that the plaintiffs higher rate of pay was considered when inserting this unpaid time into the terms of the agreement.”
Having reached a conclusion as to the federal claim, Cohill said the state claim becomes moot.