Two Sugar Cos. Hit with Suit Over Allegedly Unfulfilled CBA Provisions

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A former non-exempt, hourly-paid sugar processor has filed a proposed class action suit against C & H Sugar Company, Inc. and American Sugar Refining, Inc. over allegedly unpaid overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the California companies violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay individuals employed as sugar processors proper overtime wages when taking into account various provisions outlined in a collectively bargained agreement between all parties.

Summarily:

“[The plaintiff] consistently works 60-80 hour workweeks and on information and belief so do other members of the Collective Action and California classes. However, when [the defendants] pay [the plaintiff], and on information and belief other members of the Collective Action and California classes, they only pay him at 1.5x his hourly rate of pay (excluding the aforementioned items of extra compensation from the regular rate) for all hours worked above 40.”

The lawsuit takes particular issue with the defendants’ fulfillment of the wage conditions outlined by a collectively bargained agreement between the companies and the Sugar Workers Union 1. According to the complaint, the agreement “guarantees a shift differential to employees who work a swing or night shift,” meaning certain workers on these shifts are entitled to a slight 40- to 60-cent bump in their hourly pay.

The plaintiff alleges that in weeks in which he worked in excess of 40 hours, the defendants “excluded the shift differential earned into the regular rate” when calculating overtime pay. More severely, the plaintiff wages that the defendants have never consulted with the U.S. Department of Labor on whether this practice is legal under the FLSA.

Further in the suit, the plaintiff claims that also within the collective bargain agreement is a provision that allows for payment to workers who help coordinate the scheduling of overtime shifts and maintain said shift records. The plaintiff says that he has received payment for his time spent fulfilling this responsibility, but “when [he] receives this payment, it is not factored into his regular rate of pay for the purposes of determining overtime compensation” when he works more than 40 hours in a workweek.

Lastly, the case claims that the defendants unlawfully treated agreed-upon attendance incentive payments as compensation for the purposes of withholding taxes, meaning these funds were also not considered in the calculation of workers’ rates of pay.