Labor Overtime and Pay Not Required in Trainee Programs

Overtime, straight time and other compensation forwhether individuals are exempt from minimum wage
entering a trainee programs is often an area ofrequirements as trainees.
litigation. Training is often an area of litigation whereIn this specific case the training was provided at no
overtime claims are filed to demand not only paymentcost, but it did promise or guarantee employment, but it
for overtime, but for straight time when wages are notwas required before any employment would be
paid, because the rules are often misinterpreted.offered. The prospective employee had to also
Overtime lawsuits arise when individuals feel theircomply with other company hiring requirements.
overtime rights have been violated, and sometimesThe Divison of Labor Standards Enforcement also
they arise when trainees are unhappy because ofnoted that no work was required as part of the
training hours in excess of 8 hours per day. In manytraining. No work was performed directly or indirectly in
instances payment of wages is not required when thethe participation for the private security operators. The
prospective employee is undergoing training. It dependsparticipant's training is for their own advantage and at
on the specific circumstances of each individual case,not cost, which happens to be a requirement under
but it is usually a matter of determining if the training isfederal and state laws that pertain to hiring interns
for the benefit of the employer or the trainee. Onewithout pay. The fact that an offer of employment
particular area where training is required undercould follow upon completion of the training program
California Law is in the private security guard industry.was determined to be insufficient to establish and
In a recent opinion letter the California Division of Laboremployer employee relationship.
Standards Enforcement determined that no wagesThe Divison of Labor Standards Enforcement was
were due when training security officers for privatesatisfied that there was no employment relationship
security companies under new laws that purport toand therefore the trainee would not be entitled to
regulate the industry. The opinion was cautious andovertime pay, straight pay, or any benefits. The DLSE
tends to suggest that even though it can be used asalso emphasized that a different result could ensue if
guidance it should not mean to be interpreted asthere are assignments to work for, or individuals are
applying to all situations.allowed to work on behalf of, the training private
The opinion of the labor commissioner is that the timesecurity operator, because the trainee would be
in the pre-employment training program does notengaged, suffered, or permitted to work by the
require wage compensation under the facts presentedoperator.
in your letter. The letter focused on the requiredThe focus is therefore on whether or not the
security officer training in order to be a registeredemployee is engaged in activities that could be
security officer and not the licensing of a privateconstrued as work done on behalf of the operator
operator. In rendering it is opinion the Division of Laborproviding the training or if the training is for the benefit
Standards Enforcement relied on a test it regularlyof the operator and not the trainee.
uses to evaluate training programs and determine