A U.S. appeals court has ruled that Apple must pay retail store employees how long they wait for their bags to be checked before leaving the store,media reported. If that sounds like history repeats itself, it’s that, incredibly, Apple has been fighting the bag-search case for seven years. It is understood that when Apple retail store employees complete their shifts, they are asked to wait in line to check any bags they bring into the store.
If an employee wants to leave the store during a break, he or she will also be subject to such checks. Apple didn’t pay them at the time. Shop assistants say it usually takes 10-15 minutes, sometimes 45 minutes, and they think they should get the compensation they’re waiting for. . .
The case dates back to 2013. The case was dismissed in 2014, based on a rather strange precedent for Amazon.
In Amazon’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that because Amazon warehouse workers were not hired to pass security checks, they were not actually part of the job they were employed for. In the end, the court ruled that employees could not get paid from the company for the time they spent waiting in line for security checks.
Still, Apple seems aware that it needs to act, and Tim Cook is surprised that this is happening, while Denise Young Smith, head of human resources, says the company needs a “smarter, more respectful” approach.
Apple employees appealed to the California Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor this year, ordering the company to pay damages for the time they lost. Apple appealed again and won. The staff member has now appealed again.
The search case was reversed again.
Apple has now lost its latest claim, Reuters reported.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday local time that Apple must pay more than 12,000 retail employees in California to compensate them for the time they spent at the end of their shifts.
In February, the California Supreme Court, responding to the certification issue in the case, said that under California law, time spent on security checks can be compensated. Subsequently, a three-judge panel unanimously overturned a judge who dismissed the case and ordered him to deliver a summary judgment on bement of the plaintiff.