US court rules Apple must pay California workers during bag checks

Marco Green
February 16, 2020

Engadget reports that the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe at Apple have been ordered by the California Supreme Court to pay employees for lost time due to mandatory bag and iPhone searches in a case that began over six years ago.

Apple, which has 52 retail stores in California, requires its workers to submit to exit searches of their bags, packages, purses, backpacks, brief cases and personal Apple devices, such as iPhones, to deter theft.

The selection may resound with varied different California corporations that decision for employees to undergo security and safety testings, nonetheless the selection won't impression varied different states on account of the truth that authorities courts presently dominated that there is no such thing as a proper to cost beneath authorities laws.

Apple's coverage requires retail retailer employees to undergo searches of their private luggage after clocking out however earlier than leaving the shop.

"Apple's exit searches are necessary as a practical matter, they occur in the workplace, they imply a significant degree of control, they are imposed primarily for the benefit of Apple and enforced through the threat of discipline", Cantil wrote. And in California, all hours worked must be paid for. The employees said that on busy days, they might end up waiting close to 45 minutes for a manager or security officer to be available to conduct the search, per the company rule. The company also claimed that employees had the option of just, well, not bringing a bag or iPhone to work. Apple argued that the employees could have chosen not to bring their bags or iPhones to work and avoided the searches entirely. The class-action ruling is retroactive and covers all Apple California rank-and-file employees who were subject to the bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present. It said employees chose to bring bags along to their shifts.

Apple representatives could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.

"The irony and inconsistency of Apple's argument must be noted".

Apple attempted a number of legal defences to avert this scenario, including claiming that searches were actually in the interest of the employees.

"Its characterization of the iPhone as unnecessary for its own employees is directly at odds with its description of the iPhone as an "integrated and integral" part of the lives of everyone else".

Other reports by Click Lancashire

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER