Bearden

Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc.

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 429·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 481·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4170·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482·179 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2993
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 7, 2006B182625California5,608 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Six mine workers appeal from an order dismissing their complaint based on their employer’s failure to allow a second meal break for the 12-hour shifts they were working. A statute requires that two meal breaks be allowed for shifts of that length. But an order of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) exempts employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The principal issue before us concerns the validity of that order. We find that the exemption contravenes the statute and is invalid.

We also reject the employer’s argument that the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and their employees’ union requires that the employees arbitrate these claims. The parties raise an issue as to the retroactive application of our decision invalidating the IWC order. As we shall explain, except for application of Labor Code section 226.7, that issue must be litigated on remand. We also determine that the IWC and plaintiffs’ union are not indispensable parties to this litigation.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

“In determining whether plaintiffs properly stated a claim for relief, our standard of review is clear: ‘ “We treat the demurrer as admitting all…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.