Statutory Interpretation – Collective Bargaining Agreement – Donning and Doffing

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Steven J. Piper, et al. v. Jones Dairy Farm

Case No.: 2020 WI 28

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – Collective Bargaining Agreement – Donning and Doffing

Current and former employees of Jones Dairy Farm (the employees) filed suit in December 2010 seeking unpaid wages for time spent at the start and end of their shifts “donning and doffing” personal protective equipment and walking to and from their workstations. Jones Dairy Farm (JDF) denied liability, alleging the employees bargained over their right to compensation for this time during collective bargaining negotiations. Alternatively, JDF asserted that the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex rendered this time non-compensable and that equitable defenses precluded the employees’ recovery of damages. The circuit court denied JDF’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that: (1) the donning and doffing time was compensable; (2) the employees could not modify or eliminate compensation for donning and doffing through collective bargaining; (3) the time was not rendered non-compensable by the de minimis doctrine; and (4) JDF’s four equitable defenses did not preclude the employees’ recovery of damages.

On bypass from the court of appeals, JDF presents one principal issue: under Wisconsin law can compensation for donning and doffing personal protective equipment be modified or eliminated through collective bargaining? In the alternative, JDF contends that the de minimis doctrine renders the donning and doffing time non-compensable and that the equitable defenses of promissory estoppel, waiver, laches, and unjust enrichment preclude the employees’ recovery of damages.

We conclude that under Wisconsin law, compensation for donning and doffing cannot be modified or eliminated through collective bargaining. We assume without deciding that the de minimis doctrine applies to claims arising under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.12 (May 2019), and determine that the time the employees spent donning and doffing was not de minimis. Lastly, we conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it summarily dismissed JDF’s equitable defenses on the basis of Wis. Stat. § 109.03(5) and we remand for full consideration of those defenses. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the circuit court.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.

Concur:

Dissent: ZIEGLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., joined. REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.