29 C.F.R. § 790.11
Contract, custom or practice in effect “at the time of such activity.”
The “contract,” “custom” or “practice” on which the compensability of the activities referred to in section 4 of the Portal Act may be based, is a contract, custom or practice in effect “at the time of such activity.” Thus, the compensability of such an activity, and its inclusion in computation of hours worked, is not determinable by a custom or practice which had been terminated before the activity was engaged in or was adopted some time after the activity was performed. This phrase would also seem to permit recognition of changes in customs, practices and agreements which reflect changes in labor-management relations or policies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2010–2013 · leading case: Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 428 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2011).
Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 428 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2011). “§ 254(b)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 790.11 (“the compensability of [an activity alleged to be compensable by custom or practice], and its inclusion in computation of hours *422 worked, is not determinable by a custom or practice which had been terminated before the activity was engaged in .”
Little v. Technical Specialty Prods., LLC, 940 F. Supp. 2d 460 (E.D. Tex. 2013). “” 29 C.F.R. § 790.11 . The regulations also permit the “recognition of changes in customs, practices and *474 agreements which reflect changes in labor-management relations or policies.”
Chambers v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 793 F. Supp. 2d 938 (S.D. Tex. 2010). “§ 254(b)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 790.11 (“the compensability of [an activity alleged to be compensable by custom or practice], and its inclusion in computation of hours worked, is not determinable by a custom or practice which had been terminated before the activity was engaged in .”
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.