Company Can Require an Employee to Help It Move

Q: When our company moved recently, the movers brought in boxes and we packed up our desks.

Then they brought in about 25 large empty carriers with rollers for us to pack our big notebooks. These had to be rolled out of the office, then back in at night because we couldn’t leave them in the hall of the high-rise building overnight.

We did all the packing and lifting. All the movers had to do was come and roll the stuff to the truck and deliver it to the new offices.

Just how much is expected of an employee hired for legal work, or any work for that matter, when an employer moves? It had nothing to do with convenience; it had to do with saving money for the employer.

--P.A., Los Angeles

*

A: Although it may sound harsh, an employer generally has the right to direct the work of its employees and to terminate those who do not do what they are told to do.

Unless you have a contract guaranteeing that you will do only a particular kind of work, an employer can assign you to do whatever it wants you to do.

The only exception is that an employer may not assign different work to employees because of their gender, race, national origin, etc.

For an employer, saving money is a legitimate motivation for a work assignment.

--Deborah C. Saxe

Management attorney

Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe

Worker Not Told of Positive HIV Test

Q: I have been employed by a large corporation for seven years. Recently, while having an annual physical, I was browsing through my medical records. I noticed that there were test results from the date of hire for the AIDS virus. The report says the results were positive, but no one has told me as yet. Furthermore, I did not consent to the test.

What legal course should I take?

--C.R., Los Angeles

*

A: Depending on the nature of employment, it is not unusual for a company to require employees to submit to an annual physical, especially if the job includes physical requirements, such as driving a truck. In fact, the company may have a duty to ensure the safety of its employees and the public.

Apparently you consented to the physical exam but were not aware they were testing you for other conditions as well, such as the AIDS virus. If you can prove it was not reasonably related to your job or that you were misled about the scope of the test, you could have a claim for invasion of privacy. You might be prevented from pursuing your rights, however, because the violation occurred so long ago.

You might have a stronger claim over the company’s failure to inform you of the results of the test. After all, the company’s inaction prevented you from seeking appropriate medical remedies to halt the spread of a disease whose effects are potentially fatal.

You have valid legal arguments that the corporation, as your fiduciary, may have a duty to disclose this information. The company also may have had an implied contractual obligation to reasonably share the details of the test with you.

Evaluate the company handbook. Does it discuss physical exams? Did the company give you a commitment to provide the results of the test?

In addition, you may have a claim against any physician who supervised the laboratory that performed the testing. Regardless of who paid the doctor’s bill, you were the patient.

The company would probably argue that you knew or should have known that the test was for the employer’s private purposes only. It also might contend that some people might not want to know about certain private information and that to disclose it to them without a request might cause them undue emotional distress.

Aside from legal responsibilities, you could argue that a company has a moral obligation to disclose information that might save a person’s life.

--Don D. Sessions

Employee rights attorney

Mission Viejo

A 16-Hour Workday Is Legal

Q: My son is a pipe fitter with a nonunion company. In the past, he has had to work as long as 16 hours a day to complete a job.

Can his employer require him to work more than 12 hours a day? And is my son entitled to only straight time if he doesn’t work more than 40 hours a week?

--L.A., Wilmington

*

A: Your son’s employer can require him to work more than 12 hours per day, and there is no requirement that overtime (at time and one-half) be paid unless your son works more than 40 hours in a workweek.

Even if he works 16 hours in one day, he is not entitled to be paid overtime if he does not work more than 40 hours in that workweek.

--James J. McDonald Jr.

Attorney, Fisher & Phillips

Labor law instructor, UC Irvine

*

If you have a question about an on-the-job situation, please mail it to Shop Talk, Los Angeles Times, P.O. Box 2008, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; dictate it to (714) 966-7873; or, e-mail it to [email protected]. Include your initials and hometown. The Shop Talk column is designed to answer questions of general interest. It should not be construed as legal advice.