In 2006, a federal appeals court whose decisions are binding precedent for the United States District Court of Kansas (as well as lower federal courts in several other States) examined whether oil riggers were entitled to be paid overtime for certain travel time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In that case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the employer. Nonetheless, the Court's reasoning could provide a basis for FLSA overtime claims for many other employees.
The Court held that the oil riggers in question were not entitled to have certain travel time included as "compensable time" for purposes of overtime rights because the traveling amounted to preliminary "commute time" rather than "work time." Nonetheless, the court relied on prior decisions to establish a framework to distinguish between "commute time" and "work time." Specifically, the court explained that if an employee is hauling equipment that is indispensible to the work to be performed, the travel time is not merely commute time, but rather is compensable work time. On the other hand, where the "equipment" being transported is nominal or incidental, the travel time remains non-compensable commute time, unless other factors would lead to a contrary result. The case law and regulations provide some examples to draw this distinction. For example, where a construction worker transports a hard hat, earplugs and steel-toed shoes, or where a repair person transports "ordinary hand tools," the travel time, unless other factors lead to a contrary result, is not compensable. By contrast, where a logger transports a portable power saw to the woods for tree cutting, or an oil rigger transports 109 gallon tanks of butane gas 30 miles in a pickup truck to the rigging site, such travel time is compensable.
Many installation and repair technicians transport equipment far more substantial than "ordinary hand tools" or a hard hat, earplugs and steel-toed shoes, such as computer-related electronic equipment, HVAC equipment, plumbing equipment, etc. As a general proposition, the more substantial the equipment, and the more unique the equipment is for the task at hand, such as installing such equipment at the job site, the more likely the transportation time will be found to be compensable for purposes of the employee's overtime rights.
