Labour and wages · October 22, 2026

DOL highlights drywall overtime order tied to unpaid pre-shift waiting

By Workvado / Litequo LLC · Published October 27, 2026 · Updated October 27, 2026

A department release dated October 22 describes a New Jersey drywall installer’s $725,000 consent judgment after 48 workers were not paid for time waiting for rides to jobsites.

The U.S. Department of Labor used an October 22, 2026 release to describe a federal consent judgment involving P & B Partitions Inc., a New Jersey drywall installer. The department says the company must pay USD 725,000 in back wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages to 48 workers, and civil penalties. The department’s Wage and Hour Division said employees were not paid for pre-shift time spent waiting for transportation to their jobsites. The release reports the judgment itself was entered on June 26, 2026; October 22 is the date the department publicized the result, not the date the court entered it. Keeping those dates separate matters when contractors use the notice to review their own payroll practices or discuss the case with workers.

The case concerns how a construction employer treated the start of the workday. According to the department, workers were required to wait for transportation before traveling to jobsites, and that waiting period was not paid. The department characterized the time as compensable pre-shift work and said the omission violated federal overtime provisions. The settlement required USD 350,000 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages, with an additional USD 25,000 in civil money penalties. Those figures describe the court order reported by the agency; they are not an industrywide estimate, a per-worker award amount, or a finding that every waiting period before a shift must be paid. The Department of Labor’s general guidance says waiting time depends on the specific circumstances, including whether the employee is engaged to wait or waiting to be engaged.

That distinction is important on construction projects because crews may assemble away from the active work area before moving to the site. A contractor might direct employees to report to a yard, park-and-ride lot, office, or other collection point, then coordinate a company vehicle or crew transport to the job. The legal treatment can depend on what workers are required to do, who controls the time, whether the period is part of an assigned sequence, and how the trip relates to the workday. The P & B Partitions release does not publish the full factual record, the length of the waiting period, the route, or every transportation arrangement. It therefore cannot be treated as a universal ruling on all employer-provided rides. Its practical signal is narrower: a policy that categorically leaves required, controlled pre-shift waiting off the clock can create exposure.

The department’s Fact Sheet 22 explains that time may count as work when an employee is engaged to wait, while a person waiting to be engaged may not be working, depending on the facts. It separately describes ordinary travel from home to work as generally noncompensable and travel between jobsites during the workday as work time. Those general explanations help frame the boundaries, but the drywall case involved a specific arrangement before crews reached their jobsites. Employers should not combine separate categories of time into one blanket rule: ordinary commuting, travel from a designated meeting point, waiting for a scheduled ride, and performing tasks before departure can raise different questions. A payroll policy should reflect the actual operation rather than assume all minutes spent before arrival at the project gate are personal commuting time.

For operations managers, the first review is the reporting instruction. Do workers have to appear at a specified location at a specified time? Are they required to remain there, check in with a supervisor, load tools or materials, receive instructions, or wait until a vehicle is ready? Can they leave and use the time for personal purposes, or are they expected to stay available for an employer-arranged departure? These details should be compared with the written timekeeping rule and the way foremen actually run the morning. If the company uses subcontractor vans or crew transport, confirm who establishes the reporting point, directs the waiting period, records start times, and receives the workers’ time records. These questions are practical review steps, not findings about P & B beyond the facts the department published.

Timekeeping systems need to capture work that begins before the field shift shown on a schedule. The department’s guidance notes that the workday can extend beyond scheduled hours and that work performed at locations other than the jobsite may still count. A contractor using a mobile timeclock, gate badge, or geofence should check whether the system starts recording only when employees reach the active site. If supervisors ask a crew to collect equipment or wait for a ride before that point, the system may miss paid time unless a person or procedure records it. The Department of Labor’s Field Assistance Bulletin on hours worked also gives construction examples where required preliminary activities or travel from a designated meeting point can be part of the day’s work. Electronic logs can help document time, but the record must match the tasks employees are actually directed to perform.

The potential overtime effect depends on each worker’s total hours in a workweek, not just the length of one morning’s wait. Unpaid minutes may accumulate across multiple days and combine with field hours, travel between sites, or late work. Contractors can examine whether the same reporting or transportation routine applies consistently across projects and crews, then compare time records, dispatch schedules and foreman instructions. If a correction is appropriate, historical records and payroll calculations should be reviewed with qualified wage-and-hour counsel or a payroll specialist. The DOL release reports a court judgment and a sum due in one case; it does not give enough data to calculate what another employer would owe. Any estimate would require the relevant workers’ rates, weekly hours, period involved, and applicable federal and state rules.

The October 22 notice is useful for construction firms because it connects wage compliance to a familiar logistics decision: how a crew gets from its reporting point to the job. Owners and general contractors can also clarify project onboarding procedures so site access, badging and transport do not leave workers in an ambiguous unpaid interval. At preconstruction, teams can write down whether workers report directly to the project, whether a shuttle is optional or required, when workers must be present, and how work time is recorded. Field supervisors should know how to report early starts and offsite tasks rather than rely on a nominal shift schedule. The Department of Labor’s release is a case-specific enforcement account, while its general guidance provides the broader framework; together they support checking actual practice, maintaining accurate records and paying time that qualifies as compensable work.

DOL release date

October 22, 2026

Court judgment date

June 26, 2026

Employer

P & B Partitions Inc., New Jersey drywall installer

Workers affected

48

Total payment and penalties

USD 725,000

Back wages and liquidated damages

USD 350,000 each

Civil money penalties

USD 25,000

Sources

1. US Department of Labor secures court order requiring New Jersey employer to pay $700K in back wages, damages to 48 workers denied overtime pay, U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, read October 27, 2026
2. Fact Sheet #22: Hours Worked Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S. Department of Labor, read October 27, 2026
3. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2024-1, U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, read October 27, 2026