Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
146 Wash.2d 841 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state administrative regulation mandating paid rest periods establishes a non-negotiable minimum employee health and welfare standard that cannot be diminished by a collective bargaining agreement. Employees may bring a private cause of action, both implied under the authorizing statute and explicitly for wage claims, to enforce this right.
Facts:
- Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. employed Roger Wingert and other respondents as drivers, yard hostlers, and dockworkers.
- The employees were members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and were covered by a national collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The CBA specified break schedules for a regular workday, providing a morning and afternoon paid break.
- Employees were frequently required to work overtime at the end of their regular shifts.
- The CBA provided for a 15-minute break only for overtime assignments lasting more than two hours.
- Yellow Freight did not provide any paid rest breaks for employees who worked two hours or less of overtime.
- This practice resulted in some employees working nearly four consecutive hours of physical labor without a rest period, from their last regular break until the end of their overtime shift.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger Wingert and other employees filed a lawsuit against Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. in King County Superior Court, a state trial court.
- Yellow Freight moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing the employees' complaint.
- The employees, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Washington Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for a trial.
- Yellow Freight, as the petitioner, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court, for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state administrative regulation requiring paid rest periods establish a minimum, non-negotiable standard for employee welfare that gives rise to a private cause of action, even when a collective bargaining agreement covers the same subject?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
Yes, a state administrative regulation requiring paid rest periods establishes a minimum, non-negotiable standard for employee welfare that gives rise to a private cause of action. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regulation unambiguously prohibits employees from working more than three consecutive hours without a paid rest period, and this applies to both regular and overtime hours. Employees have two avenues for relief: a statutory claim for wages under RCW 49.52.070, because working through a mandated paid break is equivalent to providing uncompensated labor, and an implied private cause of action under chapter 49.12 RCW, which is justified by the three-part 'Bennett' test. The court reasoned that the legislative intent to protect worker health means the regulation sets a floor for working conditions, which a collective bargaining agreement can enhance but not diminish. Therefore, the CBA does not supersede the state's minimum rest break requirements.
Dissenting - Alexander, C.J.
No, the relevant statute does not create a private cause of action for a violation of an administrative regulation, and the court should not imply one. The statute, RCW 49.52.050, allows for claims based on violations of a 'statute, ordinance, or contract,' but pointedly omits the word 'regulation.' While regulations may have the force of law, they are not statutes, and the court should not rewrite plain legislative text. Furthermore, the legislature's decision to omit regulations from the statute demonstrates an intent to deny a remedy for such violations, failing the second prong of the 'Bennett' test for an implied cause of action.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
No, the regulation does not establish a non-negotiable minimum standard, and the enabling statute expressly forbids administrative rules from interfering with collective bargaining. The text of the rest break regulation itself does not contain language establishing it as a non-waivable minimum, unlike other regulations which explicitly do so. More importantly, the enabling statute, RCW 49.12.187, plainly states that regulations shall not 'in any way diminish the right of employees to bargain collectively.' The majority incorrectly deems this clear language ambiguous and misinterprets it as a limit on employees' bargaining rights rather than a limit on the agency's rulemaking power. The legislature knows how to create non-negotiable labor standards and chose not to do so here.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that state administrative regulations governing worker health and safety, such as mandatory rest breaks, create a substantive, non-waivable floor of rights. It significantly constrains the power of collective bargaining agreements to trade away such minimum protections. By affirming both an implied right of action and a statutory wage claim for missed breaks, the court empowers employees to directly enforce these regulatory standards in court, rather than relying solely on agency enforcement. This precedent strengthens the primacy of state-level labor standards over conflicting private contracts and will likely influence future disputes where CBAs and state-mandated employee protections clash.
