Ruling extends ‘home base’ rule to apply Labor Code to oil rigs

On Dec. 7, the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division 6 held that California labor laws applied to crew members on a boat that docked at a California port and provided services to offshore oil platforms located outside the state's boundaries. Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Superior Court of Ventura County, 2020 DJDAR 12997. This decision followed another California Supreme Court holding, which determined that California labor laws applied to airline employees whose "home base" was in California even though they performed most of their work in airspace outside of California borders. Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 731 (2020), and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 762 (2020).

In Gulf Offshore, crew members brought a lawsuit against their employers, Louisiana-based companies, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. Crew members were residents of various states, but they each traveled to Louisiana to apply and interview for the position. Crew members then traveled from their home states to Port Hueneme, California, where they boarded a vessel named the Adele Elise. The Adele Elise traveled through the Santa Barbara Channel to deliver supplies and pickup refuse from four oil platforms located in federal waters off the California coast. The Adele Elise always left from and returned to Port Hueneme, and it did not travel to any other states. The crew members worked a "hitch" of either 42 days on/21 days off or 21 days on/21 days off. They were not California residents, and during their time off, they would usually return to their home states.

The employers moved for summary judgment on the theories that Louisiana rather than California law governed and that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act preempted California law. The superior court denied the motion. The employers sought a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order and enter a new order granting summary judgment. In its prior opinion, the appellate court conducted a conflict of laws analysis and concluded that Louisiana law applied because Louisiana had a greater interest in regulating the employment relationships of the crew members. Following the California Supreme Court's grant of review and remand, the court vacated its prior opinion and held that California law applies.

In the latest opinion, the court relied on the "home base" rule established in Ward and Oman. Ward and Oman established that California wage and hour laws apply where the employee's principal place of work is in California. When employees do not perform a majority of their work in any state, the test is satisfied if the employees' base of work operations is California, meaning California serves as the physical location where the worker presents themself to begin work. Neither the residence of the employee nor the location of the employer is relevant.

Here, the crew members performed the majority of their work in California because the Port of Hueneme and the entire Santa Barbara Channel are located within the state. The court acknowledged that the Adele Elise did sail outside of California boundaries and into international waters. However, they held that California law still applied because California "served as a base for crew members work operations."

The court further held that there was no preemption. Although the FLSA exempts seamen from its provisions, the FLSA and general maritime law did not preempt California wage and hour laws. There was no evidence that Congress intended the FLSA's seamen exemption to preempt state law. Moreover, the California Supreme Court previously found that the FLSA does not preempt California law for individuals employed as seamen in the Santa Barbara Channel. Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal. 4th 557 (1996).

Notably, the Gulf Offshore court did not address the applicability of each of the specific wage statutes crew members alleged in the case. Ward and Oman emphasized that the jurisdictional reach of each Labor Code section must be considered separately. Ward specifically extended Section 226 -- requirements for wage statements, and Oman dealt with Section 204 -- requirement to provide wages on a semimonthly basis. The crew members in Gulf Offshore were suing under a variety of wage statutes, some of which were not specifically addressed in Ward and Oman. While the appellate court did not address these statutes individually, the decision suggests the "home base" analysis would render all the alleged Labor Code violations applicable.

In extending the holdings of Ward and Oman, Gulf Offshore established that California labor laws protect offshore vessel crew members whose of base of operations is in California, irrespective of where the employee resides or the employer is located. 