Even the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared inclined to rule off California who want to be paid for the time that they spend on the platform, such as sleeping.

The question for the large court needs to do with regulations that should apply in the case: federal law, which wouldn’t necessitate drilling platform employees to be paid for non-working time spent at their work place, or the generous California legislation, that would. The situation is pertinent to employees on approximately two dozen oil platforms off California’s coast.

However, the two conservative and liberal justices seemed doubtful California legislation applies.

Justice Samuel Alito explained that the employees’ position”means that California then extends 200 miles out to sea.” And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted at a point that”a country isn’t sovereign” over the region where the petroleum platforms at issue are.

The case before the Supreme Court entails Brian Newton, that worked off the coast near Santa Barbara in 2013 to 2015 of California. Like others living and working on the platform, he worked 14-day shifts, spending 12 hours on duty and 12 hours off duty on call — his attorneys call”controlled standby.” Employees had the opposite program, permitting 24 hours per day to operate.

Newton filed a class action lawsuit claiming that his former employer, Parker Drilling, violated California law , among other things, failing to pay employees for the time they spent on standby that was commanded, including the time that they spent sleeping.

The justices need to manage a 1953 legislation, to find out if that’s correct. It states in which the oil drilling system in the case stands federal law applies in the waters. But the law says that the legislation of the adjoining country, California, employ so long as they are”applicable and not inconsistent” with the act.

Parker Drilling says California law only applies if there is a”gap” in federal legislation, and it says there’s no difference in this case because federal minimum wage and overtime legislation applies. However, Newton asserts that California law is”related,” and not incompatible with federal labor law. He notes that national law anticipates that some nations will have labour laws that are more generous.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.

The situation is 18-389, Parker Drilling Mgmt. Services v. Newton.


Follow Jessica Gresko on Twitter