Curtis cited a 2003 9th Circuit case in which the Court of Appeal ruled that the right to overtime was not anticipated by the LMRA (Gregory v. SCIE, LLC). In that case, the court found that Section 510 of the California Labour Code determined what constituted „overtime“ and, therefore, the application was based on the interpretation of California law and not on a CBA. As the analysis did not require interpretation of the CBA, the claims were not anticipated. Curtis said the court should follow its own precedent and decide once again that overtime requests were not anticipated by federal law. Each agency`s personnel office determines the status of the Work Period Designation-WPD based on criteria established by the U.S. Department of Labor. For more information, see WAC 357-28-240. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law that establishes the minimum wage, overtime authorization, child labour registrations and standards for full-time and part-time workers in the private sector, as well as in federal, regional and local governments. „Finally, political reasons support these principles. Not only is arbitration a preferred policy in labour disputes, but otherwise maintaining in a wage and hours dispute would require parties to anticipate any possible permutation and the resulting point of disagreement, and then to include it in the agreement in order to obtain the necessary specificity that would guarantee resolution through the provisions of the claim and arbitration of the agreement. The agreement deals with overtime compensation, the applicant`s claim raises a question of overtime pay and it is not important that the agreement does not set the ten-minute period in question.
As a result, the provisions of the arbitration agreement regulate the resolution of the dispute. After Curtis` assertion that the CBAs did not comply with the requirements of Section 514 of the Labour Code was categorically rejected, 9th Circuit found that his right to overtime pay was controlled by his CBAs because the labour code did not apply to Section 510. Curtis` right to work overtime solely on the basis of the CBAs, 9th Circuit found that Curtis` call on overtime pay was anticipated by LMRA. It confirmed the rejection of Curtis` overtime and gave Irwin a victory. „The overtime provisions of the government`s wages and hours and contractual dispute act. State law requires an employer to provide for over-reassigned compensation in the manner prescribed by the FLSA; not the collective agreement. State law provides for overtime pay for „hours of work“ greater than 40 hours; The collective agreement provides for overtime pay for „active wage“ hours of more than 40 hours. If there is a conflict, it is the collective agreement.
This federal law imposes overtime payments on workers considered „tax-free“ and defines how „exempt“ workers must be paid and treated to maintain their dispensary status.