Araquistain v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs are hourly employees of PG&E, an “electrical corporation” and a “gas corporation” under Labor Code section 512, which generally requires an employer to provide an employee who works more than five hours “a meal period of not less than 30 minutes.” Their employment is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Each has worked “Consecutive Hour” shifts of at least eight hours’ duration, in which all hours are compensable and the employee is not provided an unpaid meal period. The employees, whose duties include responding to emergencies and hazards, eat while on duty, and only if eating does not interfere with the performance of duties. PG&E had a Missed Meal Payment program under which it paid plaintiffs when they were unable to take a duty free, uninterrupted 30-minute meal period during a consecutive hour shift. PG&E discontinued the program in 2011. The plaintiffs alleged PG&E is required to provide off-duty meal breaks. PG&E asserted the claims are barred by Labor Code 512, (e) - (g), and because the contracts provide for a voluntary on-duty meal period pursuant to Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 4-2001. The trial court granted PG&E summary judgment. The court of appeal affirmed. A contract that provides that employees who work shifts of eight consecutive hours “shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours and shall not be allowed additional time therefore at Company expense” falls within the exception provided in 512 (e): where a contract “expressly provides for meal periods.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.