The state Supreme Court has ruled in yet another case related to piece rate work and the minimum wage act (MWA)—the fourth case in so many years.

• Lopez Demetrio v. Sakuma Brothers Farms (2015): “employers must pay employees for rest breaks separate and apart from the piece rate.” And, “rest breaks for pieceworkers [must] be paid at least at the applicable minimum wage or the employee’s regular rate, whichever is greater.”
• Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co. (2018): For agricultural workers, “Time spent performing activities outside the scope of piece-rate picking work must be compensated on a separate hourly basis.” And, “The rate of pay for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate picking work must be calculated at the applicable minimum wage or the agreed rate, whichever is greater.”
• Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC (2018): The MWA “does not permit employers to use clock time as a ‘unit of work’ for piece rate pay. A contrary rule would allow WAC 296-126-021’s limited exception for workweek averaging to swallow up the general rule barring workweek averaging for hourly employees.” (For more, see here.)

(Workers compensated on a piece rate basis are paid per unit of work—but not less than the minimum wage. And, under WAC 296-126-021, workweek averaging is used to determine compliance with the MWA for such workers. Thus, more productive hours are allowed to offset less productive hours.)

In the new decision, Sampson v. Knight Transp., Inc., a U.S. District Court asked the Washington Supreme Court, “Does the Washington Minimum Wage Act require non-agricultural employers to pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate work?” (The opinion notes that the Court’s decision in Carranza prompted the question.)

The majority opinion says it does not: “For nonagricultural workers, WAC 296-126-021 validly allows employers to demonstrate compliance with the MWA’s guaranty that Washington workers receive a minimum wage for each hour worked by ensuring that the total wages for the week do not fall below the statutory minimum wage for each hour worked.” (Per the majority, Carranza is limited to agricultural workers.)

Further, “The central issue in this case is whether workweek averaging, as authorized by WAC 296-126-021, is consistent with the MWA’s requirement that workers receive compensation for each hour worked.” The majority holds that it is. (The dissent argues that it is not—instead, Carranza “compels this court to hold that the MWA requires nonagricultural employers to pay their piece-rate employees on a separate hourly basis, at least equal to the applicable minimum wage, for the time spent performing activities outside of their piece-rate work.”)

Ultimately, the Court finds, “the MWA does not require nonagricultural employers to pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate work.” (Emphasis added.)