Tyson Foods filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court who is hearing the meat giant’s challenge to lower-court rulings that awarded a $5.8 million class-action payout for 3,300 employees at an Iowa pork plant.
The nature of the suit deals with overtime payment being sought by plant workers for the time they spent putting on and taking off protective equipment required in their jobs. Tyson believes the lower courts erred in certifying the case as class-action. The suit states that the prosecution included hundreds of workers that “have no legal right to any damages.”
Tyson Foods pays employees at its Storm Lake, Iowa, pork plant in a “gang-time” system, which pays them “from the time the first piece of product passes their work stations until the last piece of product passes.” The company also pays a fixed amount of extra time called “K-Code” time to knife-wielding employees for donning/doffing related activities, according to the court summary.
The Tyson workers filed suit against their employer in 2007 seeking overtime pay. They won class-action status. But Tyson Foods has disagreed to the “class action status” since it was awarded.
Tyson argued that 70% of the class certified as knife-wielding employees were already receiving a fixed amount of extra “K-Code” time for donning/doffing-related activities. The plaintiffs in the case claimed that the K-Code time allowance were not sufficient and resulted in unpaid time on the job.
Tyson Foods learned in June that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear its challenge petition. Oral arguments and a ruling are expected later this fall.
“We were initially involved in this case because federal wage and hour laws are not precise in determining how to compensate certain activities. However, we’re now addressing another aspect of the case: whether there’s enough evidence for the case to be certified as a collective or a class action,” Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson, said in an email statement back in June. “Since even the federal courts of appeal are divided over the requirements necessary to be part of such cases, we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved. We’re pleased our request has been granted and look forward to presenting our position.”