Brink’s Unpaid Wages: The Downside to Being “On” at All Times

Olympia, WAIt was about 18 months ago that Brink’s Incorporated (Brink’s), the renowned armored car company, was hit with a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging non-payment of overtime wages, together with a failure to provide the legally required uninterrupted meal period as guaranteed by California law. The Armored Car Drivers Unpaid Overtime lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in November 2014, appears to demonstrate a classic disconnect between the employment laws of the state, and a job culture that suggests employees must be diligent in their duties and “on,” as it were, at all times due to the value of the financial cargo contained in the rolling vault on wheels.

Resolution of such conflict borders on the impossibility: if an armored car employee is to be engaged in his or her task at all times as mandated by the employer, then taking uninterrupted rest periods and meal breaks simply isn’t an option. The situation leaves the employer constantly vulnerable to non-compliance, while the employee is denied basic employment rights as guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state statutes.

The previously referenced Courier Unpaid Overtime lawsuit, Case No. BC564369, is based in California. A similar lawsuit, brought by armored courier employees in the State of Washington, goes back to 2011 and aptly reflects the disconnect between labor law and what is expected of the armored car courier.

That lawsuit is Pellino v. Brink’s Inc. Court documents suggest that armored cars in the Brink’s fleet are staffed by a uniformed driver and a messenger. The employees are not exempt from overtime pay. According to court documents, the employees were duly paid straight time for all meal and rest periods, but were provided with no scheduled breaks.

The unpaid wages lawsuit further stated that Brink’s required their employees to “be vigilant and alert at all times,” and to “guard the cash and other valuables entrusted to Brink’s by its customers continuously while on their runs.” The company also required its courier staff to not only remain alert at all times, but also to appear alert. Personal activities such as reading for pleasure, even on breaks, were prohibited.

Thus, while meal breaks and rest periods were duly paid, the employees maintained that such breaks were not provided - and were not true breaks, given Brink’s requirement that couriers be vigilant in guarding their cargo at all times.

It’s a classic Catch-22. It also, courts decided, ran afoul of Washington employment law.

Employment law in the State of Washington holds that non-exempt employees are allowed to take a 30-minute meal period (either paid or unpaid) starting no later than five hours after their workday begins. Employees must also be allowed to take one 10-minute paid rest period for each four-hour work period on either a scheduled or intermittent basis.

In Washington, a class of 182 armored car employees who worked for the company from April 26, 2004 through October 31, 2007 alleged they did not receive meal and rest breaks as required by Washington law. Their Armored Car Drivers Unpaid Overtime lawsuit also claimed non-payment of overtime for those breaks. While the breaks were paid on a straight-time basis, there was never any opportunity to take them, or so it was alleged. Thus, by working through their breaks and exerting vigilance at all times, the armored couriers were effectively working additional hours, for which they were not paid.

The trial court agreed, and the appellate court upheld that finding: that the vigilance required by the company amounted to “active observation and mental exertion at all times,” and thus was compensable.

The judgment against Brink’s in the Washington Courier Unpaid Overtime case was $2.1 million.

Given basic employment rights as entrenched federally in the FLSA and locally according to state laws, the disconnect between those rights and the realities of serving as an armored courier suggests there are a lot more employees out there diligently undertaking their duties in accordance to the wishes and requirements of their employer, while being underpaid.