🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
MA Opinion Letter August 12, 2002 Active
Back to Massachusetts guidance

On-call pager time away from a hotel worksite isn't covered by the on-call-at-worksite rule

Summary: A hotel asked whether the on-call regulation requiring at least four hours' pay per night for on-call workers (455 C.M.R. §2.03(1)(b)) applies to maintenance workers who carry a pager after their shift but leave the premises, returning only if called for a repair the night manager can't handle. DLS held that regulation applies only to employees on call at the worksite, so it doesn't cover this off-premises pager arrangement; instead, compensability turns on whether the worker is genuinely free to use the on-call time for personal purposes, weighing factors like restrictions on movement, call frequency, required response time, and consequences for not responding — with actual response-and-repair time always compensable. Relevant to hotels, apartment complexes, and similar operations using off-premises on-call maintenance staff.

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ezel answers your specific situation, under current Massachusetts labor law, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards (DLS). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

08/12/02 - Minimum Wage Opinion Letter - On-Call With a Pager

August 12, 2002

I am writing in response to your request for this Office's written opinion regarding the application of 455
C.M.R. 2.03(1)(b) to the *** on-call maintenance workers. [1]

As I understand it, *** employs maintenance workers who work a daily shift of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. During
all other hours, one of the maintenance workers carries a pager for emergencies. The on-call worker leaves the
hotel premises after the daily shift ends, but may be called back to perform a repair if the night manager is
unable to resolve a problem. You have asked if 455 C.M.R. 2.03(1)(b) requires the hotel to pay these on-call
workers minimum wage for at least four hours per night.

Section 2.03(1)(b) provides that:

[e]mployees working in funeral homes, doctors' offices and other places of business, whether for profit or
non-profit, which in the normal course of operations require the employee to be on duty or on call at the work
site to attend to emergencies must be paid the basic minimum wage rate for every hour for which they are on
duty or on call, except that employees who are on duty or on call at the work site at night and are provided
sleeping quarters shalll be paid the basic minimum wage for not less than four hours per night. The employer
shall make no deductions for sleeping quarters provided. For purposes of this provision, "night" shall mean
10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.

(emphasis added). On its face, this regulation only applies to employees who are on call at the worksite;
therefore, it is inapplicable to the situation you have described. [2]

To determine the compensability of on-call time away from the worksite, the relevant regulation is 455
C.M.R. s. 2.01 which includes a definition of "working time." Section 2.01 defines "working time," in
pertinent part, to include "all time" during which an employee is required to be on the employer's premises or
to be on duty, or to be at the prescribed workplace, and any time worked before or beyond the end of the
normal shift to complete the work." 455 C.M.R. s. 2.01 (emphasis added). As the employees in your scenario
are permitted to leave the worksite, the question is whether these employees are considered still "on duty"
during their on-call hours.

The term "on duty" is undefined under state regulations, but the terms "on duty" and "off duty" have been
defined under analogous federal law [3] which we may look to for guidance. See Goodrow v. Lane Bryant,
Inc., 432 Mass. 165, 170 (2000). Furthermore, federal regulations have specifically addressed the
compensability of on-call time. See 29 C.F.R. s. 785.17. While Section 785.17 is rather brief, numerous court
decisions and opinion letters issued by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division have
developed factors relevant to a determination of the compensability of on-call time in a given factual situation.
See e.g. Pabst v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 228 F.3d 1128 (2000); U.S. Department of Labor, Wage &
Hour Division Opinion Letter, May 28, 1998. This Office would employ a similar analysis to determine
whether an employee is "on duty," and, therefore, due compensation under state law.

As a general rule, when an on-call employee is free to leave the worksite and is effectively free to use his or
her time for his or her own purposes, such on-call time is not compensable time. However, each situation must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as particularly onerous restrictions on movement,
frequency of calls, required response time of very short duration, actual use of on-call time for personal
pursuits, and whether calls can be refused or if disciplinary action is taken for lack of response may affect a
determination of whether an employee is free to use the on-call time for his or her own purposes in any given


Page 2

situation. Of course, if an employee actually responds to a call and works, that employee must be
compensated.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Lisa C. Price
Legal Counsel

[1]
Please note that employers are also subject to the federal minimum wage and hour law, found in the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and regulations promulgated thereunder. For information about applicable
federal wage and hour laws, you should contact the U.S. Department of Labor. The telephone number for the
Boston Office is (617) 624-6700.
[2]
This Office is mindful of Dagan v. Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly, 445 Mass. App. Ct. 511
(1998), a Massachusetts Appeal Court case involving the compensability of on-call time to a live-in situation.
The Commonwealth was not a party to that case, and neither the court nor the litigants considered pertinent
Massachusetts regulations concerning on-call hours and working time. This opinion letter analyzes the
question presented in light of these regulations.
[3]
See 29 C.F.R. ss. 785.16, 785.17.

= Names have been Omitted

Get the answer for your situation

You just read Massachusetts's guidance on this. Ezel checks current Massachusetts labor law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.