A federal judge ruled that inflating a giant rat on behalf of organized labor does not constitute manual labor that would entitle workers to overtime.
Former union organizer Daniel Krupinski sued the Laborers Eastern Region Organizing Fund—an affiliate of the Laborers Union of New Jersey (LiUNA)—for unpaid wages and overtime amassed during his four years with the organization. Krupinski’s main job was to help union oureach efforts by inflating "Scabby the Rat," a balloon that can grow to be 25 feet tall, as well as casket displays outside of non-union workplaces to persuade workers to join the union, as Bloomberg News reported.
The former organizer argued that his outreach efforts entitled him to worker protections, such as overtime, despite the fact that he received a fixed salary. He argued that the manual nature of loading and unloading the props was on par with the physical labor traditionally found in the construction trade. The court acknowledged "that he spent the majority of his time performing fieldwork—rat actions, casket actions, house calls, leafleting—and relatively little time doing traditional office work," but ultimately sided with the labor organization because the physical activities, such as walking to and from a van, and standing on the sidewalk did not meet the threshold of manual labor.
"Krupinski’s physical tasks were merely incidental to his primary, non-manual duty of organizing workers," Sullivan ruled on Sept. 30. "The Court finds that these peripheral tasks, even if they were manual in nature, do not remove Krupinski from the scope of the [Fair Labor Standards Act’s] administrative employee exemption."
Krupinski also argued that his work was similar to that of a manufacturing production line because his actions delivered a product—newly minted union members—to his employer. Sullivan dismissed this argument, as well. The court found that his work was better understood as a marketing position because "rat actions and other organizing activities are characterized as functional services" of the Laborers Union’s "public relations and advocacy arm."
"The Court does not find the administrative/production dichotomy particularly useful in this case," Sullivan wrote.
Krupinski’s attorneys did not respond to request for comment.