Rawson

Rawson v. Tosco Refining Co.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 785·57 Cal. App. 4th 1520·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 790·97 Daily Journal DAR 12475·4 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 166
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1997A076689California1,946 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poche, J.

Plaintiff, Louis H. Rawson, appeals from a judgment entered on a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant, his employer, Tosco Refining Company (Tosco). Rawson objects to a wage order of the Industrial Welfare Commission (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010, subd. 3(A); Wage Order No. 1-89) which permits him as a member of a collective bargaining unit that has a qualifying agreement with Tosco on overtime pay rates to be paid less than the order would require him to be paid were he not subject to such a collective bargaining agreement on overtime pay. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010, subd. 3(F).)

Under the wage order employees required to work more than twelve hours in any workday or for hours beyond eight worked on the seventh day of a workweek are to be paid double their regular rate of pay. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §11010, subd. 3(A).) Rawson sought to recover the difference between the double time pay required by the wage order and the time and half pay provided for by his collective bargaining agreement.

Discussion

Tosco’s motion for summary judgment was granted on undisputed facts. Therefore the sole question before the trial court and before this court…

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.