Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-211 (2026)
Overtime
- Except as otherwise provided in this section and §§ 11-4-210 and 11-4-212, no employer shall employ any of his or her employees for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless the employee receives compensation for his or her employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay at which he or she is employed.
- The provisions regarding the payment of wages at one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay for overtime services shall not be applicable with respect to agricultural employees.
- Neither the provisions of this section nor the provisions of any other law of this state shall be construed to require the payment of compensation at a greater rate than the normal rate for services performed by agricultural employees in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
- This section shall not apply to any employee exempt from the overtime requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)-(24) and (b)(28)-(30), as they existed on March 1, 2006.
- No public agency shall be deemed to have violated this section with respect to the employment of any employee in fire protection activities or law enforcement activities, including security personnel in correctional institutions, provided that the public agency pays overtime pay in compliance with 29 U.S.C. § 207(k), as it existed on March 1, 2006.
-
In lieu of overtime compensation, the State of Arkansas and any political subdivision of the state may award compensatory time off at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1 ½) hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required. The compensatory time off may be provided only:
-
- Pursuant to applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other agreement between the public agency and representatives of such employees.
- In the case of employees not covered by subdivision (f)(1)(A) of this section, an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work; and
-
If the employee has not terminated employment and has not accrued compensatory time in excess of the following:
- Four hundred eighty (480) hours for police, firefighters, emergency response personnel, and employees engaged in seasonal activities; or
- Two hundred forty (240) hours for any public employee not otherwise exempt or covered by subdivision (f)(2)(A) of this section.
-
-
By rule, the Director of the Division of Labor may authorize employment in excess of the standard set by subsection (a) of this section or may authorize the calculation of overtime on a basis other than the regular rate of pay required by subsection (a) of this section for employment:
- Necessitating irregular hours of work;
- At a piece rate;
- Paying on a commission basis in a retail or service establishment;
- In a hospital or enterprise engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or individuals with mental illness;
- By an independently-owned-and-controlled local enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products; and
- Under a collective bargaining agreement.
History. Acts 1968 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 25, § 3; 1977, No. 345, §§ 4, 5; 1983, No. 453, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 81-321, 81-321.1; Acts 1991, No. 544, § 2; 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 15, § 4; 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 16, § 4; 2007, No. 545, § 2; 2019, No. 315, § 761; 2019, No. 910, § 5312.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment by No. 315 deleted “or regulation” following “rule” in the introductory language of (g).
The 2019 amendment by No. 910 substituted “Director of the Division of Labor” for “Director of the Department of Labor” in the introductory language of (g).
Effective Dates. Acts 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.), Nos. 15 and 16, § 8, provide: “This act shall become effective on October 1, 2006.”
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Survey of Arkansas Law, Labor Law, 1 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 217.
Case Notes
Class Action.
In a case alleging violations of the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, § 11-4-201 et seq., a circuit court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a class action under the less rigorous analysis of Ark. R. Civ. P. 23. The question of whether an employer's lunch auto-deduct policy was illegal and whether its time reclamation policy was reasonable could have been determined on a class-wide basis and was common for all putative class members. Whether the employer had a reasonable reclamation process for claiming overtime was a question that predominated over individual issues. On the issue of superiority, even though the employer was permitted to defend as it saw fit, the question was really more about how to best manage the case, something that the circuit court had broad discretion to determine. Ark. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke, 2015 Ark. 275, 466 S.W.3d 399 (2015).
In cases arising from the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, § 11-4-201 et seq., it was an abuse of discretion to certify a class of hourly, nonnursing employees alleging that they were not paid for overtime hours worked because a determination of liability would have required a highly individualized inquiry as to each employee's hours during a given week. Under the predominance requirement of Ark. R. Civ. P. 23, there was no one set of operative facts to establish liability to any given class member; if the employee did not work through lunch, and if the employee failed to work more than 40 hours in a given work week, there was no liability. Ark. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Mallett, 2015 Ark. 428, 474 S.W.3d 861 (2015).
Work.
In a case relating to a failure to pay overtime wages, an employer's mandatory donning and doffing activities clearly constituted “work” as contemplated by the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, § 11-4-201 et seq., despite the custom and practice under a collective-bargaining agreement; moreover, an exception for unionized employees under federal law was not engrafted into the Arkansas act. Gerber Prods. Co. v. Hewitt, 2016 Ark. 222, 492 S.W.3d 856 (2016) (decision under prior law).