Araquistain

Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Good Law
176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 777·2014 D.A.R. 11·229 Cal. App. 4th 227
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 2014A138487California4,569 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rivera, J.

With certain exceptions, California’s Labor Code requires an employer to provide to an employee who works more than five hours “a meal period of not less than 30 minutes.” (§ 512, subd. (a).) This provision does not apply to an employee of an electrical or gas corporation who is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that, inter alia, “expressly provides for meal periods for those employees.” (§ 512, subd. (e); see id., subd. (f)(4).) The question before us is whether a contract that provides that employees who work shifts of eight consecutive hours “shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours and shall not be allowed additional time therefore at Company expense” falls within the exception provided in section 512, subdivision (e)—that is, whether the contract “expressly provides for meal periods.” We answer that question in the affirmative, and accordingly affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Ignacio Araquistain, David Page, and Douglas Girouard are hourly employees of defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which the parties agree is an “electrical corporation” and a “gas…

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.