As an enforcement policy, time spent in an organized program of related, supplemental instruction by employees working under bona fide apprenticeship programs may be excluded from working time if the following criteria are met:
(a) The apprentice is employed under a written apprenticeship agreement or program which substantially meets the fundamental standards of the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training of the U.S. Department of Labor; and
(b) Such time does not involve productive work or performance of the apprentice's regular duties. If the above criteria are met the time spent in such related supplemental training shall not be counted as hours worked unless the written agreement specifically provides that it is hours worked. The mere payment or agreement to pay for time spent in related instruction does not constitute an agreement that such time is hours worked.
Notes of Decisions
Nichols v. City of Chicago, 789 F. Supp. 1438 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, Department of Labor (“DOL”) Regulations, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 785.32 , specifically exclude apprenticeship programs from coverage under the FLSA.”
William R. Ballou v. Gen. Elec. Co., 433 F.2d 109 (1st Cir. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Our holding is bolstered by the Department of Labor Regulation, 29 C. F.R. § 785.32, which states that employers do not have to pay apprentices for supplemental training programs if the training programs substantially comply with the fundamental standards of the Bureau of…”
Merrill v. Exxon Corp., 387 F. Supp. 458 (S.D. Tex. 1974).
· cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 785.32 . 2 In consonance with the FLSA, defendant has formed an approved apprenticeship program in the classroom.”
Doe No. 1 v. United States, 129 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 785.32 . DOL broadly allows com- pensation for “lectures, meetings, training programs and similar activities” unless certain conditions are met.”
Ballou v. Gen. Elec. Co., 310 F. Supp. 476 (D. Mass. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s contention that the classroom work of apprentices is “hours worked,” under 29 C.F.R. 785.32, is effectively rebutted by pages 39 to 41 of the Richter affidavit and also by page 7 of each of the six Apprentice Training Manuals contained in Exhibit 2 to the Richter…”
1 v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“Instead, DOL has exceptions for “bona fide apprenticeship programs,” see 29 C.F.R. § 785.32 , and outside-working-hours training by State and local government employees when required by law to obtain a certification, see 29 C.”
Doe No. 1 v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
“1, “[n]o similarly broad exception for entry-level training seems to exist in DOL regulations.”
Bienkowski v. Ne. (1st Cir. 2002).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 785.32.1 Although we noted in Ballou that the regulation's 1 29 C.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 785.32(b) — 1 case
Merrill v. Exxon Corp., 387 F. Supp. 458 (S.D. Tex. 1974).
“29 C.F.R. § 785.32 . 2 In consonance with the FLSA, defendant has formed an approved apprenticeship program in the classroom.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.