called at home

Jeffrey · December 2001

If you are called at home from some one at your place of employment and the conversation is work related ,should they get paid? I am asking for hourly and salary. Please reply to both pay positions. Thank you

Gillian · December 2001

Exempt employees no because they are paid to do their job. Non-exempt maybe - if someone calls and asks them employee where they left the key to the bathroom I wouldn't pay but if the call is something substantial they sould be. With the latter the only difference is the place where the conversation took place, thus they sould be paid.

Down_the_Middle · December 2001

For a salaried employee I would not pay for them to be contacted at home. Non-exempt might be different. If the call was a simple inquiry to locate something, etc...., then I would not pay for the time spent. If the N/E employee spent some time on the phone answering questions that they had first hand knowledge about..... I'd be inclined to pay them for time spent. You've not given enough facts to clarify who, when, why, etc....., but I think the above can serve as a general rule of thumb.

bsa · December 2001

I'll give this a try -- but don't expect forehead slapping words of wisdom from these lips. I would say a salary employee would not be paid extra. On the other hand, an hourly employee might need to be paid and there are just a slew of "if's" attached that I am not equipped to supply. Common sense tells me that an occasional call wouldn't need to be paid, but if it was a daily-weekly-nightly thing; pay some compensation for goodwill. I seem to recall something about "waiting to be engaged" or "engaged to be waiting" in one of the publications available at this website. Try searching this BB. I know it's not much, but at least I made an honest attempt!!

Hatchetman · December 2001

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-19-01 AT 07:13PM (CST)[/font][p]The issue is whether or not the non-exempt employee is performing duties in the phone conversation. Additonal consideration is how much time is actually involved.

In my reading of some cases regarding work and "inconsequential" time spent on the job, such as in changing clothing, I noticed that the courts do look to the time actually spent on activities, both work and work-related. They seem to take the position that inconsequential time spent by the emplayee is not payable. The smallest amount of time that I've come across is about 10 to 12 minutes that the particular court saw as inconsequential.

So, even if the employee is dealing with a work issue on th ephone and it only takes a couple of minutes, I suspect the employee isn't going to be able to claim work time, or at worst certainly no more than the minimal time unit the employer pays in (quarter hour minimal) when "rounding" is applied.

CuriousG · January 2002

As a couple of people have mentioned, there is a lot of missing information in your post.

Such as, what is the nature of the call (is it Joe calling his buddy Harry to tell him he got two tickets to the fights tomorrow if he wants to go?, or Does Joe have to get Harry to give him a pasword to the nuclear reactor that only Harry knows because he changed it and only gives in out in case of a China Syndrome melt-down? In the first case, neither employee should be paid for the phone call, though I suspect Joe will forget to mention to his boss the nature of the call, or that he even made it when he turns in his time card.

In the "China Syndrome" case, Harry is doing his job, even if it is just answering the phone and supplying a password. Pay the guy, he's working no matter where he is.

Another question is "Does Harry have to stay by the phone at night, waiting for the call?" If the answer is "yes" then not only is the time on the phone compensable, but the time spent waiting for the phone to ring (whether it does not not) may also need to be paid.

I suggest you get some real examples to gether and with with an attorney knowledgible of the FLSA and let him or her guide you.

called at home

Comments