• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Judge Says Tyson Must Pay

Econ101

Well-known member
Associated Press
Federal Judge Rules Against Tyson Foods
Associated Press 02.20.07, 6:10 PM ET

Popular Videos
The Most Recalled Vehicles
Striking Oscars Gold
Sirius-XM: Tuning Out Reality?
Rebranding Barbie
The Anna Nicole Sell-Off

Related Quotes
TSN 18.97 - 0.16
TSN 18.97 - 0.16


Most Popular Stories
XM, Sirius Advance On Merger News
Vulcan Heads To The Sunshine State
Bombing Of Indian Train Kills At Least 67
Google's Grainy Video Strategy
Wal-Mart Wows Street, Investors



A federal district judge ruled in favor of workers at a Tyson Foods Inc. beef-processing plant seeking payment for time spent putting on and removing safety gear for work.

Springdale, Ark.-based Tyson, the world's largest meatpacker, had sought summary judgments blocking the compensation claims, first brought by employees at the Holcomb, Kan., facility last May.

A similar case was filed against the company in Sioux City, Iowa, earlier this month.

Tyson now pays knife-wielding workers for four minutes to don and doff special protective clothing, but the current lawsuit would also cover employees who are required to wear items such as hair nets, hard hats, gloves and earplugs.

In ruling in the Kansas matter last Friday, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum in Kansas City, Kan., rejected Tyson's motions, clearing the way for the plaintiffs to seek class-action status.

The judge noted that while Fair Labor Standards Act "typically requires employers to pay their employees for all time spent working on their behalf," Congress never precisely defined "work," leaving it up to the courts to determine that on a case-by-case basis.

While Tyson attorneys contended that a 1994 case, Reich v. IBP Inc., determined that donning and doffing protective clothing wasn't work, the judge disagreed. He wrote that if the court in that case were to revisit the issue, it would analyze it differently considering subsequent cases, particularly one involving IPB, titled IBP Inc. v. Alvarez in 2005.

In that, the Supreme Court ruled that any activity that is "integral and indispensable" to a "principal activity," or work situation, is compensable, Judge Lungstrum concluded.

He also left open whether four minutes was adequate time to put on and remove special protective clothing and gear worn by those who use cleavers and knives on the assembly line. Plaintiffs contended that it often takes much longer than four minutes to dress for the job.

"We're disappointed with the decision and are carefully considering our options," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said in an e-mail. "We continue to believe we are paying all our people appropriately."

An attorney for the Holcomb plant plaintiffs, George Hanson of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, said the next step is to file for class-action certification. He said more than 800 workers have indicated they wish to join the lawsuit, titled Adelina Garcia et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc. (nyse: TSN - news - people ) and Tyson Fresh Meats Inc.

Hanson said that if his side prevails, Tyson could face millions of dollars in back-pay compensation.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
 

Econ101

Well-known member
There should not have even had to be a case brought here. Tyson succeeded in costing the plaintiffs millions in legal costs just to get this back pay that a recent Supreme Court case decided.

Tyson even had the audacity to claim it should prevail "as a matter of law". It seems this judge was not on the roster of bought off judges.

Tyson's strategy is to cost plaintiffs as much as possible in order to collect on actions that are spread out over a large group. In this case it was a lot of workers. None of the workers had the resources to take Tyson to task individually and so attorneys had to take it on a contingency basis. That entails risks for plaintiff attorneys and hence drives up the cost of these kind of actions. The workers lose out in this instance because they have to pay so much of their "winnings" to attorneys instead of being adequately compensated for their work.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I'm surprised that Tyson didn't try to blame "OSHA" for the time it takes to apply the gear that the employees must wear.

Common sense tells me that once you punch your time card, the employer pays for the time until you punch out.

This is not good. Now Tyson will have to lower the price it pays for fats................................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top