January 20, 2010

Kirk Brannock, Senior VP

Core Installation and Maintenance

2000 West AT&T Center Drive, Z1

Room 4-H-58

Hoffman Heights, IL

60192

Dear Mr. Brannock,

In regards to the change in policy for lunch hours for field technicians in California and Nevada, we stand in unity and horror that AT&T thinks a one-hour lunch forced upon field technicians is good for the business, the employee and/or for the customer, in any way, shape or form.

During the roll-outs to the union Locals in California and Nevada the reason for this draconian policy change has gone unanswered.

The contract encourages the parties to negotiate changes to the lunch break.  On its face, this unilateral change is not only a violation of our contract, but could result in a violation of California State law. You see, Mr. Brannock, in California meal periods must allow the employee to be free to take an actual break. For technicians who work in the field, current company policy does not allow that freedom as it prohibits them from “abandoning” their vehicle during their lunch break. 

We would refer you to Bond Enterprises, Inc. vs Bradshaw and to IWC Order 1-2000, 4(b). The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement has repeatedly stated the following: “When the employer directs, commands or restrains an employee from leaving the work place during his and/or her lunch hour and thus prevents the employee from using that time effectively for his and/or her own purposes, that employee remains subject to the employers control.” In California, Mr. Brannock, that time is considered as time worked and is compensable. 

In the absence of a negotiated solution, it is our position that unilateral company policies, particularly those that would result in a violation of State law, are null and void.  Because the new policy is in direct conflict with the old policy and therefore with State law, we believe a negotiated lunch break of less than one hour is the most viable solution. We would ask that you cease immediately the implementation of the one-hour lunch policy and begin appropriate discussions with the union to address whatever concerns you may have related to the lunch period of field technicians.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,