Tejeda v. Vulcan Materials Co.

1

JUAN MANUEL TEJEDA, Plaintiff, v. VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

No. 23-cv-00619-JCS

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 1, 2024

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 38

JOSEPH C. SPERO, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Juan Manuel Tejeda brings this putative class action asserting wage and hour claims under California law against his former employer, CalMat Company.^[1] The case was originally filed in Sonoma County Superior Court and was removed to this Court by Defendant under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”). A hearing on the Motion was held on April 19, 2024 and the parties subsequently submitted supplemental briefing. A second hearing was held on July 31 2024. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.^[2]

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[3]

Vulcan Materials Company (“Vulcan”) is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, primarily producing crushed stone, sand, and gravel. Miller Decl. ¶ 3. CalMat is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Legacy Vulcan LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vulcan Materials Company. Id. CalMat does business as Vulcan Materials Company in the State of California. Id. ¶ 5; Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Exhibit A (CalMat's fictitious business registration record).^[4]

Tejeda was hired by CalMat on December 13, 2017 and was terminated on May 12, 2022.

Miller Decl. ¶ 6; see also Declaration of Jordan D. Bello in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment (“Bello Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Declaration of Juan Manuel Tejeda) (Certified English Translation) (“Tejeda Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 6. While employed by CalMat, Tejeda worked as an hourly employee. Tejeda Decl. ¶ 2; Miller Decl. ¶ 6. Tejeda was initially hired as a ready-mix concrete truck driver based in Petaluma and was transferred to Napa in January 2018, where he continued to work as a ready-mix driver. Tejeda Decl. ¶ 2; Miller Decl. ¶ 6. As a ready-mix driver, Tejeda was required to maintain a Commercial Class A or Class B driver's license and was responsible for operating a heavy-duty vehicle used to transport readymix concrete to CalMat customers. Miller Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9.

In November 2020, Tejeda's job was reclassified and his job title became “Driver - Mobile Sweeper.” Tejeda Decl. ¶ 3; Bello Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4 (Job Information Change Form, produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Set One, number two (Bello Decl., Ex. 3 p. 3)). Tejeda describes his work as a mobile sweeper truck driver as follows:

My job as a Mobile Sweeper Driver was to be a driver of a sweeping truck, which is similar to street sweeping trucks used by cities to clean streets. As a Mobile Sweeper Driver, I would use the Mobile Sweeper to clean up dirt, concrete, and trash at different areas of Defendants' concrete plants like the areas where Defendants loaded concrete onto mixer trucks which would accumulate debris. Each day as a Mobile Sweeper Driver, I would start at the Petaluma concrete plant on Hopper Street. I would clean at two or three of Defendants' concrete plants a day which were in the region, but I would generally start and end my day from the Petaluma concrete plant on Hopper Street. The two primary locations I would clean would be the Petaluma concrete plant on Hopper Street and Defendants' San Rafael concrete plant. As a Mobile Sweeper Driver, I did not carry property, materials, or passengers and never crossed state lines. I would simply use the Sweeper Truck to clean areas of Defendants' concrete plants. I generally worked as a Mobile Sweeper Driver five days a week from approximately 5 a.m. to 1 p.m. and at times I would work until 2 p.m. or 3 p.m.

Tejada Decl. ¶ 3.

In support of its Reply brief, Defendant also offered a job description for the mobile sweeper position, which states as follows, under the heading “What You'll Do:”

Promote Safety and Environmental Procedures. Take an active role in prioritizing safety and Vulcan's environmental standards for yourself and others at all times while operating equipment in and out of the plant.

Operate Sweeper Truck and Equipment. Operate sweeper truck to clean loose materials such as sand, gravel, crushed rock, and/or other materials at sales yards and concrete operations. Properly operate levers on trucks, cleaning brushes, remote vacuum, and sprinkler hoses.

Inspect Equipment. Perform thorough pre-trip and post-trip inspections in accordance with Vulcan standards. Complete daily mobile equipment reports and other relevant documentation with accuracy. Must be able to handle and understand Department of Transportation regulations, keeping all documentation up to date.

Maintain Equipment. Maintain truck and equipment performance through routine maintenance, checking vehicle fluid levels. Routinely clean and service equipment used for cleaning. Perform physical activities, such as cleaning interior of collection hopper, filtering system and exterior of unit daily as per manufactures recommendation and Vulcan standards. Report unsafe mechanical conditions to supervisor.

Additional Responsibilities. Other duties, yard maintenance and housekeeping as assigned.

Declaration of Jennifer Baker in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Baker Decl.”), Ex. 1. The job description further states that a sweeper truck operator “[m]ust possess a commercial driver's license and have a valid DOT physical or the ability to get one.” Id.

Tejeda accepted the job as a ready-mix truck driver at CalMat in Petaluma, then in Napa, with the understanding that these were union positions. Miller Decl., Ex. C (Dec. 13, 2017 offer letter for position of ready-mix driver at Petaluma location stating that the job was a union job subject to the collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Union Local 665; Jan. 30, 2018 offer letter for ready-mix driver at Napa location stating that the job was a union job subject to the collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Union Local 315; June 16, 2020 offer letter for ready-mix driver at Petaluma location stating that the job was a union job subject to the collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Union Local 665). Plaintiff also signed a form dated June 19, 2020 certifying that he was a member of the Local 665 and had previously been a member of the Teamsters Union Local 315. Miller Decl., Ex. G.

Defendant has supplied the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with Teamsters Local 665, which it contends is the applicable CBA for the time period covered by Tejeda's claims. Miller Decl., Ex. H (“Local 665 CBA”). As discussed below, the parties disagree as to whether the Local 665 CBA applies to Tejeda's work as a mobile sweeper driver. It is undisputed that the Local 665 CBA applies to his work as a ready-mix driver.

Section 3 of the Local 665 CBA set forth regular hourly wages, providing for regular wages starting at $30 per hour, and Section 2.7 listed overtime rates. Id., Sections 2.7, 3. The Local 665 CBA provided that the start/quit times were “in one-quarter (1/4) hour increments.” Id., Section 2.2. The Local 665 CBA established rules governing provision of lunch periods, but those requirements could be waived by employees who “[met] and agree[d] to the eligibility requirements for an ‘On Duty Meal Period Agreement.'” Id., Section 2.4. Section 20.1 of the Local 665 CBA established a grievance procedure, which included the creation of a Board of Adjustment to address any disputes relating to the “meaning or enforcement” of the CBA. Id., Section 20.1. Under the CBA, the decision of the Board of Adjustment was “final and binding on both parties.” Id.

According to Defendant, “CalMat configures its timekeeping system, Kronos, to round start and end times pursuant to the ‘rounding rule,' established in . . . the Local 665 CBA.” Miller Decl. ¶ 14.

Tejeda signed an On Duty Meal Period Agreement on January 30, 2018. Id., Ex. I (“Meal Period Agreement”). The Meal Period Agreement states that it remains in effect “indefinitely” but that the employee may revoke the agreement at any time with written notice to the employer. Id. According to Defendant, there is no evidence he ever revoked that agreement. Miller Decl. ¶ 15. Under the Meal Period Agreement, “Calmat Co....and . . .Tejeda . . . agreed that the nature of [Tejeda's] work as a Ready-Mix Truck Driver, including but not limited to customer requirements, may prevent [Tejeda] from taking required, duty-free unpaid meal period(s) of at least 30 continuous minutes (Off-Duty Meal Period)” and that “only on such workdays” Tejeda would be “entitled to one ‘on-duty' meal period[.]” Id., Ex. I.

B. Procedural Background

1. The Complaint

In the Complaint, Tejeda alleges that he was an hourly non-exempt employee of CalMat and Vulcan from January 30, 2022 to May 12, 2022. Compl. ¶ 4. He alleges that as a CalMat employee, he was subject to the following illegal pay practices:

• Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage: Tejeda alleges he worked more minutes per shift than Defendant credited him with having worked, including by “rounding” down or “shaving” his total daily hours at the time of their clockin and clock-out to the nearest quarter of an hour, including at the time of their clock-in and clock-out for meal periods, “from February 12, 2022, to the present[,]” in violation of California Labor Code sections

...