Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC

In interpreting an administrative rule, the Court applies the same general principles applicable to an interpretation of statutes to determine the intention of the administrative agency that adopted the rule. Marshall’s Towing v. Department of State Police, 339 Or 54, 62, 116 P3d 873 (2005).

This putative class-action claim arose under ORS 653.055. Plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's decision to not certify the class action of plaintiffs. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the 30-minute meal period required by OAR 839-020-0050 is mandatory and, if not taken, the employer must pay its employees’ wages for the full 30-minute meal period. In response, Employer argued that, under OAR 839-020-0050, an employer need only make available a 30-minute meal period but is not required to monitor whether employees take the full 30-minute meal period or pay wages if the employee voluntarily chooses not to take the full 30 minutes. The trial declined to certify the class under ORCP 32 A, because claims would require fact-specific inquiries dependent on the reason the employee did not take the full 30-minute meal period. However, under ORS 19.225, the trial court allowed plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal seeking an interpretation of OAR 839-020-0050. In interpreting an administrative rule, the Court applies the same general principles applicable to an interpretation of statutes to determine the intention of the administrative agency that adopted the rule. Marshall’s Towing v. Department of State Police, 339 Or 54, 62, 116 P3d 873 (2005). After the Court engaged in statutory interpretation of the administrative rule, it held that the minimum meal period prescribed by OAR 839-020-0050 is mandatory and, in the absence of a waiver of the meal period as provided in OAR 839-020-0050(8), an employer who is not exempt must require a 30-minute meal period without work duties and pay wages to an employee who is not relieved of duties during the entirety of the required minimum 30-minute meal period. The Court's conclusion requires the trial court to reconsider its rulings regarding the certification of a class under ORCP 32 A. Rulings under ORCP 32 A vacated and remanded