A vehicle alarm service technician was not entitled to be paid for his commute time and preliminary work activities, but may be entitled to be paid for work performed at home after the job was completed for the day, the Ninth Circuit rules.

The technician was employed to install and repair vehicle recovery systems and required to travel to the job sites in a company-owned vehicle. The employee was paid on an hourly basis beginning when he arrived at his first job location and ending when he completed his final job installation of the day. The technician was required to be “on call” from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. During this time, technicians were required to keep their mobile phones on and answer requests from dispatch to perform additional jobs, but they were permitted to decline the jobs, according to the Court. The employee also alleged that he spent time in the morning receiving assignments for the day, mapping his routes to the assignments, and prioritizing the jobs, including time spent logging on to a handheld computer device provided by the employer that informed him of his jobs for the day. After he returned home in the evening, the technician was required to upload data about his work to the company, which involved connecting his handheld computer to a modem, selecting an upload process, and making sure that the transmission was successful. The Court observes that “there is evidence in the record that it often took more than one attempt to successfully complete a transmission,” and that the company instructed technicians not to transmit their data ten minutes before or after the hour because the corporate computer system was automatically reset at those times. Technicians were further instructed “to wait an hour if they have technical difficulties and that after two unsuccessful attempts they should call the host computer and document the date, time,…number called from, and any specific error message, dial tone, or busy signal heard over the phone line,” the Court notes. A lower court had dismissed his class action claim for the unpaid commute time and his preliminary and postliminary activities, and he appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit says that pursuant to the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act, use of an employer’s vehicle to commute is not compensable even if it is a condition of employment. It also holds that the employee’s preliminary “morning activities do not appear to be integral to his principal activities,” and that of his activities — “receiving, mapping, and prioritizing jobs and routes for assignment” —were related to his commute or of a “de minimis” nature. However, the Court returns the issue of his postliminary activities—the transmission of the computer data—to the lower court for a determination, since it finds that the transmissions were an integral part of the employee’s principal activities and that there were “material issues of fact” as to whether the transmissions were de minimis. Rutti v. Lojack Corp.