Upon review of these authorities and the language of the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code, the Court finds that California law does not allow an employer to "build in" time for non-driving tasks into a piece-rate compensation system. Although Armenta is factually distinguishable from this case in that it considered a payment system based only on hours, the Court finds that it is nonetheless applicable, and stands for the proposition that employees must be directly compensated for all time worked. n20 The well-reasoned opinions of both the Ontiveros and Cardenas courts further support this interpretation. This interpretation is also supported by the DLSE opinion letter, which expressly precludes the possibility of allowing time to go uncompensated when employees cannot earn piece-rate compensation for a given task.See Quezada, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98639, at 18-19.
On July 15, 2012, Eastern District Magistrate Judge, Dennis L. Beck, entered an order in Clayton v. Knight Transp., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98459 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2012), recommending certification of labor code claims brought on behalf of a class of individuals who failed to receive minimum wage compensation for approximately 19 hours of time spent in standardized new hire “orientation” classes. The defendant’s effort to defeat certification by injecting a dispute as to its status as an “employer” was deemed incapable of undermining the element of predominance, as the facts underpinning plaintiff’s theory of liability and the issue of defendant’s status as an “employer” both turned on the issue of “control”, which the Court concluded could be established based on identical evidence common to the class as a whole:
The parties argue extensively about which test the Court should ultimately apply to determine whether those who attended orientation are employees. The Court need not decide the test at this point, however. Regardless of the test used, individual issues do not predominate. Defendant would have this Court believe that employment status cannot be determined on a non-individualized basis, but for the reasons discussed above, common questions of law and fact predominate. In other words, for attendees attending classroom orientation, employment status can be determined on a group-wide basis because the relevant facts are the same for the group. Defendant exerted control over the times and places of orientation and the daily schedule, and the time spent at orientation was generally consistent. n3 Similarly, assuming attendees are employees, the consistency in time spent at orientation will allow for determination of whether the employees would be entitled to minimum wage. See eg., Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport, 258 F.R.D. 361 (C.D. Cal. 2009).See Clayton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98459, at 17-18.