The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") does not preempt California state-law claims for an employer's failure to provide meal breaks, allowing workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement to bring such claims against their employer.

Union-represented employees sued their employer in state court for failing to provide them with adequate meal and rest breaks as required by California's Labor Code and wage regulations.  California law requires that employees receive at least a 30-minute meal break after working five hours.  Failure to provide this break entitles employees to one hour's pay for each day they do not receive an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break.  In this case, the employees' collective bargaining agreement also provided that employees must receive a 30-minute meal break following five hours of work.  The contract provided that employees receive time and a half for working through the meal break.  This contract provision, however, was never enforced. 

Rejecting the employer's argument that the employees' remedy was through the collective bargaining agreement, not the courts, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that the LMRA does not preempt "nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law."  The Ninth Circuit concluded that California's statutory and regulatory provisions regarding meal breaks are designed to apply to all employees, are a generally applicable labor standard intended to protect individual employees, and are not subject to waiver by agreement. 

Valles v. Ivy HillCorp., 177 LRRM 2475 (9th Cir. June 6, 2005)

A California Court of Appeal held that it was lawful for an employer to deny commissions to subscription salespersons where the customer does not pay for the subscription within 28 days of the sale, even where the employer provides an advance to the employee on the commission.  The employer had carefully defined the customer payment on the sold subscription as a "condition precedent" to payment of the commission, and each sales employee signed a contract acknowledging that condition.  Thus, said the Court, the commissions did not become "wages" earned and owed to the employees until that payment condition was met.  The Court found this arrangement distinguishable from an employer attempt to recoup costs for employee negligence or cash shortages through subsequent payroll deductions; such deductions from wages earned are unlawful under the California Labor Code.  Since the commissions were not earned under the employees' contracts until the 28 days passed, failure to pay was not unlawful.

Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times Communications, 2005 DJDAR 1575 (2nd DCA February 7, 2005)