WPCv {߿#?7ڭȨ,w{F.DIx 1n;M#a7G.Bɠ~uD? f-G,Sɶsa3Qt^<[ &s Ua"o(^N ($250plus8hoursat$2.61or40hoursat$5.21plus8 d hoursat$7.82). : 778.114(b).  $XKXXX      17    _ԀThecircuitsaresplitonthequestionwhethertheemployee  ortheemployerbearstheburdenofproofunder778.114.Compare  Davisv.FriendlyExpress,Inc.,2003WL21488682,at*3(11thCir. \ Feb.6,2003)(employeebearstheburden);Samsonv.Apollo 2 Resources,Inc.,242F.3d629,63637(5thCir.2001)(same),with X _Monahan_v.CountyofChesterfield,95F.3d1263,1275n.12(4th . Cir.1996)(employerbearstheburden).Wedonotdecidethis   issue.Giventheundisputedtermsofthe_CBAs_,ourconclusionis   thesameregardlessofwhobearstheburdenofproof. n $XKXXX      18    _ԀForexample,ifanemployeeispaid$5/hourforhandling  cargoduringaneighthourworkdayandtimeandahalf($7.50/hour)  forworkoutsideofthateighthourday,theextra$2.50/houris \ considered"overtime"compensationandmaybecreditedtowardsany 2 statutoryovertimeliabilitydueinthesameweek.See29_C.F.R._ X 778.206.  $XKXXX      19    _ԀTheTownarguesthat_Heder_isinappositebecausethe  plaintifffirefightersinthatcasehadtheirpaydockedifthey  failedtoworkaminimumnumberofhours.Theofficersinthis \ case,theTownurges,neverhavetheirpaydocked;theyreceive 2 1/52oftheirannualsalaryeachweekregardlesshowmanyhours X theywork. Butthatdoesnotmeantheofficers'straighttime . compensationisfixedirrespectiveofhowmanyhourstheywork.   The_CBAs_Ԁinthiscase,likethe_CBA_Ԁin_Heder_,anticipatethatthe   employerwillcountandcompensateeveryhourworked,sothatthe `  employees'weeklystraighttimepaywillvaryaccordingtothe 6   numberofhoursworked.See295F.3dat780.Thatarrangementis  \  sufficienttoprecludecompliancewith778.114.  $XKXXX      1    _ԀAlthoughthe_FLSA_Ԁdidnotoriginallyapplytostateand  localgovernments,CongressextendedtheActin1974toreach  virtuallyallstateandlocalemployees.TheSupremeCourt \ ultimatelyupheldthisassertionoffederalpowerinGarciav.San 2 AntonioMetro.TransitAuth.,469U.S.528,55556(1985).See X also_Blackie_v.Maine,75F.3d716,719(1stCir.1996).  $XKXXX      21    _ԀTheworkperiodrequirementisordinarilynotahighhurdle.  Virtuallyanybonafide,fixed,recurringperiodofbetween7and  28dayswillsuffice.See553.224(a)(defining"workperiod"). \ Withinthatrange,"theworkperiodcanbeofanylength,andit 2 neednotcoincidewith[theofficers']dutycycleorpayperiodor X withaparticulardayoftheweekorhouroftheday."Id. . Indeed,theworkperiodneednotevenreflecttheactualpractice   ofovertimecalculationbetweentheparties,iftheemployer   announcesaqualifyingworkperiodbutchoosestopayitsemployees `  moregenerously._Lamon_v.CityofShawnee,972F.2d1145,1154 6   (10thCir.1992).Nevertheless,iftheemployerfailstoannounce  \  andtakebonafidestepstoimplementaqualifyingworkperiod,the  2  ordinaryovertimeprovisionsof201(a)willapply.See_Birdwell_   v.CityofGadsden,970F.2d802,806(11thCir.1992). $XKXXX      22    _ԀAtoralargument,theTownsuggestedforthefirsttimethat  29_C.F.R._Ԁ553.224,theDepartmentofLabor'sregulationdefining  "workperiod"forpurposesof207(k),misinterpretsthestatute \ byrequiringthattheworkperiodcannotexceed28days.See 2 553.224(a)(workperiod"cannotbelessthan7consecutivedays X normorethan28consecutivedays").Properlyinterpreted,the . Townargues,thestatuteimposesnoupperlimitonthelengthof   theworkperiod.     Wedoubtthatthisargumentisproperlybeforeus.See `  _Carreiro_v.RhodesGill&Co.,68F.3d1443,1449(1stCir.1995) 6   (argumentsraisedforthefirsttimeatoralargumentarewaived).  \  Evenifitis,weseenobasistooverturntheagency's  2  interpretationof207(k).Subparagraph(1)of207(k)   specificallyaddressesworkperiods"of28consecutivedays,"and   subparagraph(2)addressesworkperiods"ofatleast7butless d  than28days."Nothinginthetextofthestatutecontemplates :  workperiodslongerthan28days.Totheextentthestatuteis `  ambiguous,moreover,thiscourtisboundbytheagency'sreasonable 6 interpretation.SeeChevronU.S.A.v.NaturalRes.Def.Council,   Inc.,467U.S.837,84344(1984);Reichv.NewspapersofNew  England,Inc.,44F.3d1060,1070(1stCir.1995)(Secretaryof h Labor'sregulationsunderthe_FLSA_ԀareentitledtoChevron > deference).GiventhatCongressappearstohavemodeledthe d 207(k)exemptionafterthe28dayworkcyclescommonlyemployed : bypoliceandfiredepartments,seeH.R.Conf.Rep.No.93913  (1974);_Barefield_v.Villageof_Winnetka_,81F.3d704,710(7th  Cir.1996),itwasreasonableoftheDepartmentofLaborto l regulatethatunder207(k),aworkperiodmaynotexceed28days. B   $XKXXX      23    _ԀTheTownmakesthisargumentonlywithregardtopolice  officerswhohold"supervisory"rankthatis,SpecialSergeant,  Sergeant,Lieutenant,orCaptain. TheTownconcedesthatordinary \ patrolofficersarenotexempt--thatis,thattheyarecoveredby 2 the_FLSA_.  " $XKXXX      25    _ԀTheTowndisputesboththesignificanceandtheveracity  ofthe_Gallerani_Ԁaffidavit.   $XKXXX      26    _ԀWenoteparentheticallythatcompensationundertheQuinn  Billisconsideredpartoftheofficers'basesalaryunder  Massachusettslaw.MassGen.Lawsch.41,108L.Wedonotrely \ onthispointforourdecision,however,becausetodosowould 2 obligeustodecideadifficultandunnecessaryquestionoffederal X law:whetherastatestatutetreatingcertainpaymentsas"salary" . bindsafederalcourtinterpretingthe_FLSA_.Itissufficientfor   ourdecisionthattheofficers'contractwiththeTownentitles   themtoreceiveQuinnBillpayasremunerationforemployment.  $XKXXX      27    _ԀInparticular,theTowndoesnotarguethatrollcall  attendanceisa"preliminary"activityforwhichthePortalto  PortalActprecludesliability.CertainlythatActdoesnotbar \ compensationforrollcalltimeexpresslymadecompensablebythe 2 _CBA_.See29U.S.C.254(b)(1);29_C.F.R._Ԁ785.9.Wedonot X considerwhateffect,ifany,thePortaltoPortalActwouldhave . onthecompensabilityofrollcalltimeinexcessoftheten   minutespershiftanticipatedbythe_CBA_.Cf.785.9.  $XKXXX      15    _Ԁ6XKXXXKSection778.114isaninterpretativeregulation,andsuch  agencyinterpretationsnormallydonotbindcourts.See_Batterton_  v.Francis,432U.S.416,425n.9(1977).Butbecause778.114 \ representstheSecretaryofLabor'simplementationoftheSupreme 2 Court'sholdinginOvernightMotorTransp.Co.v.Missel,316U.S. X 572,580(1942),thiscourthaspreviouslyindicatedthatthe . regulationhasbindingeffect.SeeMartinv.Tango'sRestaurant,   Inc.,969F.2d1319,1324(1stCir.1992).Inanyevent,the   partieslimittheirargumentstowhetherthecompensationscheme `  embodiedinthe_CBAs_Ԁcomportswiththeregulation,andweconfine 6   ourselvestothesamequestion.#XKXX6XKĒ#Ԁ<  9Z+Courier New  $XKXXX      20    _ԀCongressinitiallysetthemaximumnumberofhoursunder  207(k)at216,butgrantedtheSecretaryofLabortheauthority  topromulgateregulationssettingalowerceiling.See \ 207(k)(1).TheSecretaryhasdonesoin29_C.F.R._Ԁ553.230(b), 2 whichsetstheceilingforlawenforcementpersonnelat171hours X ina28dayworkperiod,oraproportionalnumberofhoursina . shorterworkperiod. $ $XKXXX      2    _ԀForsimplicity,appellantsaredescribedhereinasthough  theyareallcurrentpoliceofficers.Theretiredofficers'_FLSA_  claimsareidenticaltothoseofcurrentofficersforpurposesof \ thisappeal,althoughtherelieftowhicheachgroupmaybe 2 entitledonremand,ifany,maydiffer. !XKXXX  _=KXdd=TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! XBXXXK e*X XB     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  e*  FortheFirstCircuit  0  XKX 0  SA') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.031685 K    @@ GARYO'BRIEN,DONALD_GALLERANI_,ANTHONY_CICHETTI_,GERALD_O'KEEFE_,  G  RALPHGRADY,RICHARDCURRY,MARK_CECCARINI_,JAMESDONOVAN,ERIC    _GILLIS_,ERICFAIRCHILD,PAUL_CHENEVERT_,ANTHONYMALONE,JOHN   _KONASEK_,JENNIFER_BLANCHETTE_,CHRISTOPHER_BRUNELLE_,WILLIAM y  _SLIECH_,ANTHONYGRASSO,BRIANSTRONG,ERIC_LOTTERMOSER_,JAMES O  WHEELER,ANDREW_PARRELLI_,RONALDBROWN,THERESA_MOCCIO_,RICHARD %u  CONLON,DANIEL_CIAK_,KEITH_BOPKO_,ROBERTMARSH,RICHARDLIGHT, K  KAREN_LANGEVIN_,ERIC_CAMERLIN_,GARY_NARDI_,STEVEN_DRAGHETTI_,JOHN ! FIELD,THOMAS_MARMO_,ROBERTBURKE,RICHARD_RICCIO_,PETER_BERTERA_,  EDWARDMCGOVERN,RICHARDNILES,EDWARDCONNOR,RICHARDMCDONNELL, } PAULMURPHY,JOHN_MOCCIO_,STANLEY_CHMIELEWSKI_,ROLAND_DYMON_,MARK S _PFAU_,STEVENGRASSO,WAYNE_MACEY_,MICHAEL_GRUSKA_,DONALD_LONCTO_, )y MARK_POGGI_,JOSEPH_SANTORE_, O @Plaintiffs,Appellants,  @tt)v. W @P P TOWNOF_AGAWAM_;_AGAWAM_ԀPOLICEDEPARTMENT, S @Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<Z` A [ @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT @ !   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS !f" @@*[Hon.MichaelA._Ponsor_,U.S.DistrictJudge] "$ A') ` dE<m$` A n$& @@'Before S% ( @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, &O"* Lipez,CircuitJudge, '%#+ and_Oberdorfer_,SeniorDistrictJudge. #  *       (#, A') ` dE<V*` A W*%.  f*%/?( _      JohnConnorforappellants.      DavidA.Robinsonforappellees. \ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ..  SIB  @37956@SDecember2,2003  h  RHC > " @37956 @ R(B    (  * !   v      8KXXdXXd8*,X` XX*OY ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Currentandformerpoliceofficers  oftheTownofAgawam,MassachusettsbroughtsuitundertheFair x LaborStandardsAct(FLSA),29U.S.C.201etseq.,allegingthat $t theTown'scompensationschemeforpoliceofficersviolatesthe   FLSAbyomittingcertainwageaugmentsfromthecalculationofthe |  officers'overtimerate.- #  1      ׀Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummary ( x  judgmentfortheTown,holdingthattheofficerswererequiredto $  exhaustthebindinggrievanceandarbitrationproceduresintheir   collectivebargainingagreements,andthatinanyeventtheTown ,|  hadpaidtheofficersinaccordancewiththeFLSA.Weholdthat ( arbitrationwasnotrequired,butweaffirmsummaryjudgmentasto  theofficersofsupervisoryrank,whomweconcludearenotcovered 0 bytheFLSA.Astotheremainingofficers,wereverseandremand. ,   I.    A.FactualBackground  P  ` OnreviewofanorderforsummaryjudgmentXKXX XK,wedescribe h thefactsinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty   (here,theofficers).Rocafortv.IBMCorp.,334F.3d115,119 p!"  (1stCir.2003). #l$  ` Appellantsarecurrentandretiredpoliceofficerswho   are,orwereatrelevanttimes,employedbytheTownofAgawam.8 #  2      # XKXXXK*#XKXX XKԀ \ ThemajorityarepatrolofficersintheAgawampoliceforce.The X remainderaresupervisoryofficers,acategorythatincludesthose   holdingtherankofspecialsergeant,sergeant,lieutenant,or `  captain.   \   ` Employmenttermsforbothpatrolandsupervisoryofficers   intheAgawamPoliceDepartmentareestablishedthroughcollective d  bargaining.AppellantsaremembersoftheInternational `  BrotherhoodofTeamsters,LocalUnionNo.404,whichactsastheir   exclusivebargainingagent.OnMay14,1999,theUnionandthe h Townnegotiatedtwocollectivebargainingagreements(CBAs),one d forthepatrolofficersandanotherforthesupervisors,  establishingthepayrates,hoursofwork,andothertermsof l employmentforAgawampoliceofficers.BothCBAswereeffective h fromJuly1,1998throughJune30,2001.Althoughnosuccessor  contracthasbeennegotiated,itisundisputedthattheofficers p   continuetoworkandreceivepayunderthetermsoftheCBAs. !l" Apartfromdifferencesinpayrates,thetwoagreementsare  essentiallyidenticalforpurposesofthisappeal. #  3       \   ` UndertheCBAs,allofficerswork1950straighttime X hoursperyear,oranaverageof37.5suchhoursperweek.Theydo   soonastandard"fourdayson,twodaysoff"workschedulethat `  is,arepeatingcycleoffourconsecutivedaysondutyfollowedby  \  twoconsecutivedaysoffduty. #  4      ׀Eachscheduleddayonduty   involvesaneighthourshift,plustenadditionalminutestoattend d  rollcall.Duetotheofficers'sixdayshiftrotation,thenumber `  ofhourseachofficerisscheduledtoworkvariesfromweekto   week.  #  5      ׀ h  ` TheCBAsalsoanticipatethatofficerswillbecalled d upontoworkoutsideoftheirscheduledhours,asthreatstothe  publichealthandsafetydonotnecessarilycoincidewithshift l rotations.Ifanofficerworkslongerthanasingleshiftonany h givenday,orotherwisemustbeondutywhenhewasscheduledtobe  offduty,heisentitledbycontractto"overtime"payattherate \ of"timeandonehalf." #  6      ׀ Inaddition,variousminimumlevelsof X compensationapplytosuchextraworkforexample,anyofficer   whoiscalledtoworkonanoffdutydayisguaranteedatleast `  fourhoursofovertimepay,regardlesswhetherheactuallydoes  \  fourhoursoflabor.     ` TheCBAsalsoestablishtheamountsoftheofficers' d  wages.Theagreementssetannual"salary"figuresforofficersof `  eachgradeandrank. Eachofficerreceivesexactly1/52ofthat   salaryeachweekasbasepay,regardlessofthenumberofhours  actuallyworkedduringthatweek. Inaddition,theCBAsguarantee 0 certainadditionalcompensationtotheofficers,includingshift ,  differentialcompensation, @ #  7      ׀longevitypay,!  #  8      ׀andcareerincentivepay  OY    undertheQuinnBill,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.41,108L." #  9      ׀TheTown   doesnotincludethesewage"augments" inthecalculationofthe \ officers'"timeandonehalf"overtimerate.Instead,theTown X calculateseachofficer'sovertimeratesimplybydividingthe   officer'sannualsalaryby1950,whichistheexpectednumberof `  regularshifthoursduringthecalendaryear,andthenmultiplying  \  theresultinghourlyrateby1.5. Thisistheonlyovertime   calculationmethodthattheTownemploys;itdoesnotusea d  differentformulaorpayadifferentrateforhoursworkedin `  excessoffortyinaweek.Inadditiontostraighttimepay,   overtimepay,andthecontractualwage"augments,"theofficers h receiveafixedlumpsumpaymenteachDecembertocompensatethem d forthetimespentatrollcallbeforeeachshift.#j #  10      ׀    ` BothoftheCBAsprovidebindinggrievanceand l arbitrationprocedures.Theseproceduresaretheexclusiveavenue h ofredressforanyclaimthattheTownviolatedanobligationunder  theagreement. Neitherarbitrationprovisionreferstostatutory p  claims,andneitherCBAcontainsanyotherarbitrationprovision.  Noneoftheappellantsfiledagrievanceorsoughtarbitration \ concerninganyoftheissuesinthiscase X  B.ProceduralHistory     ` OnJuly3,2001,threedaysaftertheexpirationofthe |  CBAs,appellantsfiledthisactionagainsttheTown. Thecomplaint ( x  allegedthattheTown'smethodofcalculatingovertimewages $  violatestheFLSAbecauseitfailstoincludetheofficers'   contractuallyguaranteedwageaugmentsintheir"regularrate"of ,|  paythatis,theratetowhichtheFLSA'stimeandahalf ( overtimemultiplierisapplied.$ #  11      ׀See29U.S.C.207(a)(overtime  compensationmustbepaid"ataratenotlessthanoneandonehalf 0 timestheregularrateatwhich[theemployee]isemployed"). In , addition,appellantsclaimedthattheTownviolatestheFLSAby  compensatingofficersforrollcallattendanceinanannuallump 4 sumpayment,ratherthanasweeklyovertime.  0  ` Afterdiscovery,thepartiesfiledcrossmotionsfor   summaryjudgment. OnJanuary7,2003,thedistrictcourtgranted 8!" summaryjudgmentfortheTown. OnMay1,thecourtissueda "4$ memorandumdeclaringthat theofficers'FLSAclaimfailedforthree $& reasons,eachsufficienttosupportsummaryjudgment. First,the <&!( districtcourtheldthatdespitetheofficers'invocationofthe  FLSA,theyhadinfactpleaded"aclassiccontractanchoreddispute \ overcalculationofovertime,gussiedupasastatutoryclaim."  X Accordingly,thecourtheldthatappellantswereobligatedto   exhausttheirgrievanceandarbitrationremediesundertheCBAs. `  Second,thecourtheldthattheTownadequatelycompensates  \  indeed,overpaystheofficersundertheFLSAbecauseitproperly   employsthe"fluctuatingworkweek"calculationmethodin29C.F.R. d  778.114,whichrequiresonlyhalftime(ratherthantimeandone `  half)overtimepremiums. Finally,thedistrictcourtheldthatthe   Townwasentitledtosummaryjudgmentbecausetheofficersare h subjecttothepartialovertimeexemptionforlawenforcement d officersin29U.S.C.207(k),andgiventhatpartialexemption,  theofficerswereadequatelycompensatedundertheFLSA. The l officerstimelyappealed.  h   II.   ?  ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment   denovo.V.Suarez&Co.,Inc.v.DowBrands,Inc.,337F.3d1,4 8!" (1stCir.2003). "4$  ` Becausethelegalissuesinthiscasearebothnumerous $& andcomplex,abriefpreviewoftheanalysismaybehelpful. <&!( First,weexaminethedistrictcourt'sthreegroundsforsummary '8#* judgmentinturnandconcludethateachwasinerror.Second,we )$, considerwhetherthedistrictcourt'sdecisionmaybeaffirmedon @+&. anyalternativebasisthatismanifestintherecord.SeeTorres  Rosadov.RotgerSabat,335F.3d1,13(1stCir.2003).Wehold \ thatsummaryjudgmentwasproperastothesupervisoryofficers X becausetheyareexemptfromtheovertimerequirementsoftheFLSA.   Finally,wereachthemeritsofthenonsupervisoryofficers'FLSA `  claimsandconcludethatshiftdifferentialpay,longevitypay,and  \  careerincentivepaymustallbeincludedinthecalculationofthe   officers'"regularrate"undertheFLSA.Wealsoconcludethat d  rollcalltimemustbeincludedintheofficers'weeklyhours `  workedundertheFLSAandbecompensatedaccordingly.    A.TheDistrictCourt'sGroundsforSummaryJudgment  h  ` 1.0 ArbitrationundertheCBA0 (# (#  ` Thedistrictcourtheldthattheofficers'FLSAclaims , arebarredfromfederalcourtbecausetheyareessentially  contractclaimsforunpaidovertime,andcontractclaimsare 4 subjecttotheCBA'smandatorygrievanceandarbitration 0 procedures.Onappeal,theofficersarguethattheirstatutoryand   contractualrightsaredistinct,andthatnothingintheCBAs 8!" waivestheirstatutoryrighttoajudicialforumfortheirFLSA "4$ claims.Theyalsocontendthatevenifsuchawaiverwerepresent, $& itwouldbeunenforceableundertheSupremeCourt'sdecisionin <&!( Barrentinev.ArkansasBestFreightSys.,Inc.,450U.S.728,737 '8#* 46(1981)(holdingthatacollectivebargainingagreementcannot )$, prospectivelybindemployeestoarbitrateFLSAclaims). @+&.  ` Theofficers'firstcontentionsufficestoresolvethis  issue.RightsconferredbyCongressareconceptuallydistinctfrom \ thosecreatedbyprivateagreement,andthereisnoauthorityfor X thepropositionthatrightsundertheFLSAmergeintocontractual   oneswheneverthetwooverlap.% #  12      ׀"Thedistinctlyseparatenature `  ofthesecontractualandstatutoryrightsisnotvitiatedmerely  \  becausebothwereviolatedasaresultofthesamefactual   occurrence."Alexanderv.GardnerDenverCo.,415U.S.36,50 d  (1974)(involvingrightsunderTitleVII);seeGilmerv. `  Interstate/JohnsonLaneCorp.,500U.S.20,3435(1991)   (reiteratingthatstatutoryrightsareindependentofrights h createdunderCBAs);MoralesVallellanesv.Potter,339F.3d9,17 d (1stCir.2003)(remediesunderTitleVIIandCBAsare  independent);LaChancev.NortheastPubl'g,Inc.,965F.Supp.177, l 184(D.Mass.1997). h  ` Thisleavesthequestionwhethertheofficerswere  requiredtosubmittheirFLSAclaimstoarbitrationundereitherof \ thecollectivebargainingagreements.Theywerenot.NeitherCBA X containeda"clearandunmistakablewaiver"oftheofficers'right   toajudicialforumforFLSAclaims.Wrightv.UniversalMar. `  Serv.Corp.,525U.S.70,7980(1998).InWright,theSupreme  \  Courtnotedthe"obvious[]...tension"initsarbitration   jurisprudencebetweenoldercasesholdingthatCBAscannever d  prospectivelybindemployeestoarbitratefederalstatutoryclaims, `  seeBarrentine,450U.S.at74546(FLSAclaims);GardnerDenver,   415U.S.at5152(TitleVIIclaims),andmorerecentcases h holdingthatemployeescanbecompelledtosubmitsomefederal d statutoryclaimstoarbitrationpursuanttoavalidarbitration  clauseinabilateralemploymentcontract,see,e.g.,CircuitCity l Stores,Inc.v.Adams,532U.S.105,12224(2001);Gilmer,500 h U.S.at2729.See525U.S.at76.TheWrightCourtdeclinedto  resolvethistension,holdingthatevenassumingaCBAcanwaivean p  employee'srighttoafederalforum,anysuchwaivermustata !l" minimumbe"clearandunmistakable."Id.at7981;seealsoid.at "$ 80("[W]hetherornotGardnerDenver'sseeminglyabsolute t$& prohibitionofunionwaiverofemployees'federalforumrights  &p!( survivesGilmer,GardnerDenveratleaststandsfortheproposition '#*  thattherighttoafederaljudicialforumisofsufficient x)$, importancetobeprotectedagainstlessthanexplicitunionwaiver  inaCBA."). \   ` NosuchclearandunmistakablewaiverappearsintheCBAs X inthiscase.Thearbitrationprovisionineachagreementapplies   onlyto"grievances,"whichinturnaredefinedasallegationsthat `  theTownviolatedtheCBA. Notasinglereferenceappearsto  \  arbitrationofstatutoryclaims,letaloneaclearandunmistakable   waiverofajudicialforumforsuchclaims.Indeed,thepatrol d  officers'CBAaffirmativelysuggeststhatunionmemberscanbring `  statutoryclaimsinajudicialforum.Incontrasttothe   arbitrationsectionoftheagreement,whichmakesnoreferenceto h statutoryclaims,theparagraphgoverningworkplacediscrimination d barstheTownfromdischargingordiscriminatingagainstany  officerbecauseheorshe"filedorprocessedanygrievanceunder l thisagreementorinstitutedanyproceedingundertheStateor h Federalstatutesrelatingtowages,hours,orconditionsof  employment"(emphasisadded). TheCBAjuxtaposes"grievances," p  whicharesubjecttoarbitration,withclaimsunder"[f]ederal !l" statutesrelatingtowages,hours,orconditionsofemployment,"of "$ whichtheFLSAisamongthemostprominent.Thisisafarcryfrom t$& a"clearandunmistakable"waiveroftheofficers'rightunderthe  &p!( FLSAtoajudicialforum.SeeWright,525U.S.at81(findingno '#* clearandunmistakablewaiverofafederalforuminlanguageinthe x)$, CBApurportingtocover"allmattersaffectingwages,hours,and $+t&. othertermsandconditionsofemployment");Quintv.A.E.Staley  Mfg.Co.,172F.3d1,89(1stCir.1999)(CBAlackinganyexpress \ referencetofederalantidiscriminationstatutesdidnotinclude X a"clearandunmistakablewaiver"ofanemployee'srighttobring   astatutorydiscriminationclaiminfederalcourt).& #  13       `   ` Weconcludethatthegrievanceandarbitrationprocedures  \  intheCBAsdidnotbartheofficersfromfilingtheirFLSAclaims   directlyinfederalcourt.( #  14      ׀ d   ` 2. OverpaymentI:FluctuatingWorkweekMethod   ` Asanalternativebasisforsummaryjudgment,the \ districtcourtheldthattheTownproperlycalculatespolice X overtimeinaccordancewiththe"fluctuatingworkweek"methodset   forthin29C.F.R.778.114.Wherethatinterpretativeregulation `  applies,theminimumovertimeraterequiredbytheFLSAisonly  \  halftime(i.e.,50%oftheregularrate),ratherthantimeanda   half(150%).Relyingon778.114,thedistrictcourtconcluded d  thattheTownpaidtheofficersmoregenerouslythantheFLSA `  requires. SeeValeriov.PutnamAssocs.,173F.3d35,40(1stCir.   1999)(summaryjudgmentisappropriateiftheemployeeultimately h receivedmorecompensationthantheFLSAovertimerulesrequire). d Onappeal,theofficerscontendthatthecompensationscheme  embodiedintheCBAsisinconsistentwiththerequirementsof l  778.114.5 #  15       h  ` Thefluctuatingworkweekmethodisoneoftwoapproved   methodsintheDepartmentofLabor'sFLSAregulationsfor \ calculatingthe"regularrateatwhich[anemployee]isemployed" X forovertimepurposes.29U.S.C.207(a);seeValerio,173F.3d   at39.Thefirstisthe"fixedweeklysalary"method,which `  governsemployeeswhoreceiveafixedsalarythatisintendedto  \  compensateaspecificnumberofhoursoflabor(e.g.,$400for40   hours).29C.F.R.778.113(a).Theotheristhefluctuating d  workweekmethod,whichapplieswhenanemployee"ispaidafixed `  weeklysalaryregardlessofhowmanyhourstheemployeemayworkin   agivenweek."Valerio,173F.3dat39.Thismethodisintended h tocovercasesinwhich"asalariedemployeewhosehoursofwork d fluctuatefromweektoweek[reaches]amutualunderstandingwith  hisemployerthathewillreceiveafixedamountasstraight-time l payforwhateverhoursheiscalledupontoworkinaworkweek, h whetherfewormany...."Condov.SyscoCorp.,1F.3d599,601  (7thCir.1993). p   ` Whenthefluctuatingworkweekmethodapplies,the !l" employee's"regularrate"forFLSApurposesiscalculatedaneweach "$ weekbydividingtheactualnumberofhoursworkedthatweekinto t$& thefixedsalaryamount.Thiscalculationproducesastraight-time  &p!( hourlyrate,whichisthenmultipliedby50%toproducethe '#*  overtimeratethatmustbepaidforeveryhourworkedbeyond40 x)$, thatweek.) #  16      ׀Theinterpretativeregulationsexplainwhythe   overtimerateisonlyhalf-time,ratherthantheusual \ time-and-a-half:"Paymentforovertimehoursatone-half[the X regular]rateinadditiontothesalarysatisfiestheovertimepay   requirementbecausesuchhourshavealreadybeencompensatedatthe `  straighttimeregularrate,underthesalaryarrangement."  \  778.114(a).Inotherwords,thefixedsumrepresentsthe   employee'sentirestraighttimepayfortheweek,nomatterhow d  manyhourstheemployeeworked;theemployerneedonlypaythe50% `  overtimepremiumrequiredbytheFLSAforhoursafter40.    ` Forobviousreasons,anemployermaynotsimplyelectto  paythelowerovertimerateunder778.114.Theregulation \ requiresthatfourconditionsbesatisfiedbeforeanemployermay X doso:   (1)0 ` theemployee'shoursmustfluctuatefromweekto `  week;6  ` `  (2)0 ` theemployeemustreceiveafixedsalarythatdoes  \  notvarywiththenumberofhoursworkedduringthe  2  week(excludingovertimepremiums); ` `  (3)0 ` thefixedamountmustbesufficienttoprovide   compensationeveryweekataregularratethatis d  atleastequaltotheminimumwage;and: ` `  (4)0 ` theemployerandemployeemustsharea"clear `  mutualunderstanding"thattheemployerwillpay 6 thatfixedsalaryregardlessofthenumberofhours   worked.` `  ttt778.114(a),(c);seealsoFloodv.NewHanoverCounty,125F.3d > 249,252(4thCir.1997).* #  17      ׀Inthiscase,theofficersdisputethe : secondandfourthconditions:theycontendthattheircompensation  doesvaryundertheCBAswiththenumberofhoursworked,andthat B no"clearmutualunderstanding"existedthattheywouldbepaid > accordingtothefluctuatingworkweekmethod.Inconsideringthese   contentions,wefollowthedistrictcourt'sexampleinrelyingon F ! theCBAs,asneitherpartydisputesthattheTowninfactpaidthe  officersaccordingtothetermsofthoseagreements.  \   ` AftercarefullyreviewingtheCBAs,wearepersuadedthat X theofficersarecorrect.Thiscasedoesnotfitthe778.114   mold.Itistrue,asthedistrictcourtemphasized ,thateachweek `  theofficersreceive1/52oftheirannualbasesalary,irrespective  \  ofthenumberofshiftsworkedthatweek.ButundertheCBAs,that   sumdoesnotconstituteallofthestraighttimecompensationthat d  theofficersmayreceivefortheweek.Thisissignificantbecause `  bytheplaintextof778.114,itisnotenoughthattheofficers   receiveafixedminimumsumeachweek;rather,tocomplywiththe h regulation,theTownmustpayeachofficera"fixedamountas d straighttimepayforwhateverhoursheiscalledupontoworkin  aworkweek,whetherfewormany."(emphasisadded). l  ` TheundisputedevidenceindicatesthattheTowndoesnot h satisfythisrequirement.Theofficers'compensationvariesfrom  weektoweekevenwithoutreferencetothenumberofhoursworked. p  Anyofficerrequiredtoworkanighttimeshiftreceivesmoney !l" expresslytermed"additionalcompensation"undertheCBAinthe "$ formofa$10shiftdifferentialpaymentaddedtohischeckforthe t$& week. TheSupremeCourthasspecificallyheldthatsuchshift  &p!( differentials,whenpaid,arepartoftheworker'sregularrateof '#* pay.BayRidgeOperatingCo.v.Aaron,334U.S.446,46869 x)$, (1948).Sowhiletheshiftdifferentialitselfmaybesmall,it $+t&. requiresthelargerconclusionthatmostofficersdonotreceivea  "fixedamount"fortheirstraighttimelaboreachweek. \  ` Theofficers'weeklystraighttimecompensationalso X variesundertheCBAsdependingonthenumberofhoursworked.   Thisisbecausetheofficersreceiveextrapayforeveryhour `  workedbeyondeighthoursinaday ,andforeveryhourworkedon  \  otherwiseoffdutytime ,regardlesswhethertheirtotalnumberof   hoursworkedfortheweekexceedsforty.TheCBAslabelsuchextra d  pay"overtime,"butthatdoesnotcontrol.Forpurposesofthe `  FLSA,allhoursworkedunderthestatutorymaximumarenonovertime   labor.See29C.F.R.778.101("[A]workweeknolongerthanthe h prescribedmaximumisanonovertimeworkweekundertheAct... d .");Reichv.JohnAldenLifeIns.Co.,126F.3d1,7(1stCir.  1997)(underFLSA,"overtime"means"employmentinexcessof40 l hoursinasingleworkweek").Thatthepartieshavebycontract h designatedcertaincompensationforlaborunderthefortyhour  threshold"overtime"doesnotaffectthecharacterizationofthose p  paymentsundertheFLSA.# XKXXXKg#XKXX XKԀ# XKXXXKč#XKXX XKCf.Wallingv.YoungermanReynolds !l" HardwoodCo.,325U.S.419,42425(1945)("Oncethepartieshave "$ decidedupontheamountofwagesandthemodeofpaymentthe t$& determinationoftheregularratebecomesamatterofmathematical  &p!( computation,theresultofwhichisunaffectedbyanydesignation '#* ofacontrary'regularrate'inthewagecontracts.").The x)$, regulationsspecificallyexplainhowtotreatsuchmidworkweek $+t&. contractualovertimepaymentsundertheAct:onlythepremium  portionofthecontractualovertimerate(thatis,theamountin \ excessoftheemployee'sregularrate)isdeemed"overtime"payand X maybeoffsetagainstanystatutoryovertimeliabilityinthesame   week.+ #  18      ׀See29C.F.R.778.201(a),202(a);seealso29U.S.C. `  207(e)(5)(excludingfromthedefinitionof"regularrate"all  \  "extracompensationprovidedbyapremiumratepaidforcertain   hoursworked...inexcessofeightinaday");id.207(h) d  (permittingemployerstooffsetsuchextracompensationagainst `  FLSAovertimeliability).Theremainderissimplyconsidered   straighttimecompensationundertheAct. h  ` Forthisreason,theofficersinthiscasedonotreceive d a"fixedamountasstraighttimepayforwhateverhours[theyare]  calledupontoworkinaworkweek,whetherfewormany."Onthe l contrary,theofficersreceivemoreorlessstraighttimepay h dependingonhowmanycontractualovertimehourstheyworkeach  week.TheCBAsrequiretheTowntotrackeachofficer'shoursfor p  eachdayduringtheworkweekandcompensatehimaccordingly.This !l" beliestheTown'sclaimthatitusesthefluctuatingworkweek "$ method.TheSeventhCircuitrecentlyconsideredasimilar t$& arrangementandheldthatitdidnotcomportwith778.114:  "Everyextrahouriscalculatedandpaidfor.Thatisincompatible \ withtreatingthebasewageascoveringanynumberofhoursat X straighttime."Hederv.CityofTwoRivers,295F.3d777,780   (7thCir.2002)., #  19      ׀Weagree. `   ` TheTowncontendsthatitissimplypayingtheofficers  \  moregenerouslythantheFLSArequires. # XKXXXKЉ#XKXX XK Weareunpersuaded.   Section778.114appliesonlyifthereisa"clearmutual d  understanding"thattheemployee'sfixedsalaryiscompensationfor `  howevermanyhourstheemployeeworksduringtheweek.Admittedly,   thisdoesnotrequirethattheemployeeunderstandorgiveactual h consenttotheemployer'smethodofcalculatingovertime.Valerio, d 173F.3dat40.Inthiscase,however,theTown'smethodof  calculatingovertimeispremisedonassumptionsinconsistentwith l 778.114.NeithertheCBAsnortheTown'smethodsofcalculating h  payratesindicatethatthepartiesreachedaclearmutual  understandingthattheofficerswouldworkvaryingnumbersofhours  eachweekinexchangeforafixedsum.# XKXXXKĻ#XKXX XKԀ \   ` WeholdthatthecompensationschemeembodiedintheCBAs X doesnotcomplywith778.114.    ` 3.0 OverpaymentII:TheLawEnforcementExemption`  (# (#  ` Thedistrictcourt'sthirdalternativegroundforsummary  \  judgmentwasthattheofficershavereceivedalloftheovertime   paymentsduetothembecausetheyarecoveredbytheFLSA'spartial d  exemptionforlawenforcementpersonnel.Under29U.S.C.207(k), `  asinterpretedbytheSecretaryofLabor,noovertimecompensation   isrequiredforlawenforcementpersonneluntilthenumberofhours h workedexceeds171hoursina28-dayworkperiod,oraproportional d numberofhoursinashorterworkperiod--inthecaseofa7-day  workperiod,thatproportionworksoutto43hours.7 #  20      ׀Seeid.;29 l C.F.R.553.230(b),(c).Theeffectofthe207(k)partial h exemptionistosoftentheimpactoftheFLSA'sovertimeprovisions  onpublicemployersintwoways:itraisestheaveragenumberof p  hourstheemployercanrequirelawenforcementandfireprotection !l" personneltoworkwithouttriggeringtheovertimerequirement,and "$ itaccommodatestheinherentlyunpredictablenatureoffirefighting t$& andpoliceworkbypermittingpublicemployerstoadoptwork  periodslongerthanoneweek.SeeWethingtonv.Cityof \ Montgomery,935F.2d222,224(11thCir.1991);Maldonadov. X AdministraciondeCorreccion,1993WL269650,at*1(D.P.R.Jul.1,   1993).Thelongertheworkperiod,themorelikelyitisthatdays `  ofcalmwilloffsettheinevitableemergencies,resultingin  \  decreasedovertimeliability.    ` The207(k)exemptionapplies,however,onlyifthe d  employeesareengagedin"fireprotection...[or]law `  enforcementactivities"withinthemeaningof207(k),andonlyif   theemployerhasadoptedaqualifying"workperiod."Theemployer h bearstheburdenofprovingthattheseconditionsaresatisfied. d Barefieldv.VillageofWinnetka,81F.3d704,710(7thCir.1996);  Birdwellv.CityofGadsden,970F.2d802,805(11thCir.1992). l Oncethefactualcriteriaareestablished,theemployercansimply h startpayingitsemployeesunder207(k);theemployees'approval  isnotrequired.Barefield,81F.3dat710.Inthiscase,the p  partiesagreethattheofficersareengagedinlawenforcement !l" activitiesasdefinedby29C.F.R.553.211.Thesolequestionis "$ whethertheTownhasadoptedaqualifyingworkperiod,whichis t$& "anyestablishedandregularlyrecurringperiodofworkwhich,  &p!( underthetermsoftheActandthelegislativehistory,cannotbe '#* lessthan7consecutivedaysnormorethan28consecutivedays." x)$, 553.224(a). $+t&.  ` Onthisrecord,theTownhasnotestablishedaqualifying  workperiodunder207(k).. #  21      ׀Alloftheevidenceintherecord \ indicatesthattheTownemployedtheofficersonrepeatingsix-day X cyclesoffourdayson-dutyfollowedbytwodaysoff-duty.The   CBAsstatethisscheduleexplicitly .AndwhiletheTowncouldin `  theoryemployaworkperiodforpurposesof207(k)thatdiffers  \  fromthetermsoftheCBAs,seeFranklinv.CityofKettering,246   F.3d531,536(6thCir.2001),nothingintherecordshowsthatit d  hasdoneso.TheTowndoesnotpointtoasinglestatementor `  documentindicatingthatitadoptedaworkperiodlongerthansix   days.Instead,itoffersonlytheargumentthattheofficers'work h periodislongerthansevendaysbecauseitisarepeatedcycleof d sixdays,andthattheworkperiodisinevitablyshorterthan28  daysbecausetheofficersdisrupttheirownscheduleswithsick l days,vacationdays,andholidays. Thisargumentfailsasamatter h oflogic.Itisalsoinconsistentwith553.224(a),which  requiresthattheworkperiodmustbe"establishedandregularly  recurring"(emphasisadded)./ #  22       \  ` WeholdthattheTownisnotentitledtothe207(k) X exemption.Butweaddacaveat:# XKXXXKĸ#XKXX XKԀTheofficersacknowledgeintheir   briefthatnotwithstandingtheCBAs,afewofficersworked `  repeatingcyclesoffivedaysondutyfollowedbytwodaysoff  \  duty. WecannotdeterminefromtherecordwhethertheTowninfact   adoptedasevendayworkperiodastotheseindividualofficers. d  Cf.29C.F.R.553.224(b)(employermayhavedifferentwork `  periodsapplicabletodifferentemployees).Thisissueremains  opentotheTownonremand.# XKXXXKί#XKXX XK \  B.AlternativeGroundsforSummaryJudgment  X  ` Althoughweconcludethateachofthedistrictcourt's   threegroundsforsummaryjudgmentwasincorrect,thiscourtmay |  affirmonanyalternativebasisthatismanifestintherecord. ( x  TorresRosado,335F.3dat13.TheTownurgesustoupholdsummary $  judgmentastothesupervisoryofficers0 #  23      ׀onthealternativeground   thatsuchofficersareexecutiveemployeesexemptfromtheovertime ,|  protectionsoftheFLSAunder29U.S.C.213(a)(1). (  ` Section213(a)(1)oftheFLSAexemptsfromtheovertime  rulesanyemployeewhoworksin"abonafideexecutive, 0 administrative,orprofessionalcapacity."Thestatutefurther , delegatestotheSecretaryofLaborbroadauthorityto"defin[e]  anddelimi[t]"thatexemption.Id.;Auerv.Robbins,519U.S.452, 4 456(1997).Withrespectto"executive"employees,theSecretary 0 hasdonesoin29C.F.R.541.1.Thatregulationrequires,inter   alia,thattheemployeebecompensatedforhisservicesona 8!" "salarybasis." #  24      # XKXXXKm#XKXX XKԀ541.1(f).TheburdenisontheTownto "4$ establishthatthesupervisoryofficerssatisfythistest.See  CorningGlassWorksv.Brennan,417U.S.188,196-97(1974);John \ AldenLifeIns.,126F.3dat7. X  ` WeholdthatthesupervisoryofficersintheAgawam   PoliceDepartmentarepaidona"salarybasis."Anemployeeis `  paidonasalarybasis"ifunderhisemploymentagreementhe  \  regularlyreceiveseachpayperiodonaweekly,orlessfrequent   basis,apredeterminedamountconstitutingallorpartofhis d  compensation,whichamountisnotsubjecttoreductionbecauseof `  variationsinthequalityorquantityoftheworkperformed."29   C.F.R.541.118(emphasisadded).Thisistheso-called"no h docking"rule,whichwasrecentlyinterpretedbytheSupremeCourt d inAuerv.Robbins.   ` Auerwasfactuallyakintotheinstantcase.Agroupof l policesergeantsandalieutenantsuedtheircitygovernmentunder h theFLSAtorecoverovertimewages,andthecitydefendedby  assertingthe213(a)(1)exemption.Theplaintiffsrespondedthat p  theywerenotpaidona"salarybasis"becauseunderthetermsof !l" theirpoliceemploymentmanual,theyweretheoreticallysubjectto "$ reductionsinpayfordisciplinaryinfractions(thatis,forthe t$& "qualityorquantity"oftheirwork).Auer,519U.S.at455.The  &p!( SupremeCourtunanimouslyrejectedthisargument,holdingthata  mere"theoreticalpossibility"ofdisciplinaryorotherpay \ deductionswillnotdefeatsalary-basisstatus.Id.at459,461. X Rather,adoptingtheviewoftheSecretaryofLaborasamicus   curiae,# XKXXXK#XKXX XKԀtheCourtheldthatthesalary-basistestwillbemet `  unlesstheemployeesaresubjectto"disciplinaryorother  \  deductionsinpay'asapracticalmatter.'"Id.at461(emphasis   added).Thisstandardismet(1)iftheemployerhasan"actual d  practice"ofmakingsuchdeductions;or(2)iftheemployer's `  disciplinarypolicyindicatesa"significantlikelihood"thatan   employeeintheplaintiff'spositionmayactuallyfacesuch h deductions.Id. d  ` InlightofAuer,itisclearthatthesupervisory  officersinthiscasewerepaidonasalarybasis.Thedistrict l courtfoundthattheofficers"receiv[ed]1/52oftheirannualpay h eachweek,regardlessofthenumberofhoursthattheyhappenedto  workinanyparticularweek." Inthiscontext(andunlikeunder p  778.114),itdoesnotmatterthatthesupervisoryofficers !l" receivedvaryingamountsofcontractualovertimepaymentsin "$ additiontotheirsalary;therelevantquestionissimplywhether t$& theofficersreceived"apredeterminedamountconstitutingallor  &p!( partof[their]compensation"onaweeklybasis.See541.118(a) '#*  (emphasisadded).Itisundisputedthattheydid. x)$,  ` Furthermore,thesupervisoryofficersdidnotfacea   "significantlikelihood"ofdisciplinaryreductionsinpay.Itis \ truethattheAgawamPoliceDepartmentManualspecifiesarangeof X possibledisciplinarysteps,andthatthemanualincorporatesby   referencetheprovisionsofMass.Gen.Lawsch.31,41,which `  permitdisciplinarysuspensionsofpoliceofficerswithoutpay.  \  Butboththemanualandthestatutearedirectedto"officersand   employees"generally;neitherindicatesanyreallikelihoodthat d  supervisoryofficersfacesuchdiscipline.TheSupremeCourtin `  Auerconsideredasimilarlybroadreferencetopaydeductionsina   policemanualandrefusedtoinferthatthepetitioners,whowere h supervisoryofficers,facedasignificantlikelihoodofsuch d discipline:  Thisissobecausethemanualdoesnot"effectively l communicate"thatpaydeductionsareananticipatedform B ofpunishmentforemployeesinpetitioners'category, h sinceitisperfectlypossibletogivefulleffectto > everyaspectofthemanualwithoutdrawinganyinference  ofthatsort.Ifthestatementofavailablepenalties  appliedsolelytopetitioners,matterswouldbe p  different;butsinceitappliesbothtopetitionersand F ! toemployeeswhoareunquestionablynotpaidonasalary !l" basis,theexpressedavailabilityofdisciplinary !B# deductionsmayhavereferenceonlytothelatter. "$ CQ_519U.S.at462(emphasisinoriginal).AfterAuer,thecourtsof t$& appealshaveconsistentlyrejectedchallengesto"salarystatus"  &p!( basedonlyonnonspecificreferencestodisciplinarypay '#* deductions.See,e.g.,Spradlingv.CityofTulsa,198F.3d1219, x)$, 1223-24(10thCir.2000)(firechiefsexemptfromFLSAeventhough $+t&. theoreticallysubjecttodisciplinarypaydeductions);Aikenv.  CityofMemphis,190F.3d753,761-62(6thCir.1999)(similar, \ policecaptains);Kelleyv.CityofMountVernon,162F.3d765, X 768-69(2dCir.1998)(similar,policelieutenantsandsergeants).   Theevidenceinthiscaseisnodifferent. `   ` Likewiseunconvincingistheofficers'argumentthatthe  \  Townimplementedan"actualpractice"ofsuchdisciplinarypay   deductions.Theonlyevidenceintherecordofdisciplinarypay d  deductionsagainstsupervisoryofficersistheaffidavitof `  SergeantDonaldGallerani ,whichdescribes"atleastfourseparate   instancesinrecentyears"inwhichfellowsupervisorswere h subjectedtopaydeductionsforviolationsofnon-safetyrules.2 #  25      ׀ d Eventakingthisevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothe  officers,fourisolatedincidentsarenotsufficienttoshowan l "actualpractice"ofreducingsupervisoryofficers'compensationto h punishvariationsinthequalityoftheworkperformed."The  actualinstancesofpayreductionmustamounttoanactualpractice p  ofmakingsuchdeductions."Spradling,198F.3dat1224;see !l" DiGiorev.Ryan,172F.3d454,464-65(7thCir.1999)(five "$ isolatedincidentsinsufficienttoshow"actualpractice"), t$& overruledonothergrounds,246F.3d897(7thCir.2001);Davisv.  &p!( CityofHollywood,120F.3d1178,1180(11thCir.1997)(six '#* incidentsinsufficient);cf.Blockv.CityofLosAngeles,253F.3d  410,419(9thCir.2001)(holdingthatapatternofnineteen \ disciplinarysuspensionswithoutpaywassufficienttoestablishan X "actualpractice").    ` Weconcludethatthesupervisoryofficersareemployed `  "inabonafideexecutive...capacity,"213(a)(1),and  \  consequentlyareexemptfromtheovertimeprotectionsoftheFLSA.    C.SalaryAugmentsandtheFLSA"RegularRate"  d   ` Atlastwereachthequestionattheheartofthe ,|  officers'FLSAclaim:whethertheFLSAobligatestheTownto ( includetheofficers'contractuallyguaranteedshift-differential  pay,longevitypay,andcareer-incentive(QuinnBill)payinthe 0 officers'"regularrate"forpurposesofovertimecalculationunder , theFLSA.Theofficerssayitdoes;theTowndeniesthis  proposition. 4  ` Calculationofthecorrect"regularrate"isthelinchpin 0 oftheFLSAovertimerequirement.Thetermissignificantbecause   under29U.S.C.207(a)(1),anemployeewhoworksovertimeis 8!" entitledtobepaid"ataratenotlessthanoneandonehalftimes "4$ theregularrateatwhichheisemployed"(emphasisadded).The $& statutedefinestheterm"regularrate"in207(e).Underthat <&!( provisionandtherelevantcaselawandinterpretativeregulations, '8#* theregularratecannotbestipulatedbytheparties;instead,the )$, ratemustbediscernedfromwhatactuallyhappensunderthe @+&. governingemploymentcontract.See29C.F.R.778.108;BayRidge  OperatingCo.v.Aaron,334U.S.446,46263(1948).Thegeneral \ rule,pertheplaintextoftheFLSA,isthattheregularrate X "shallbedeemedtoincludeallremunerationforemploymentpaid   to,oronbehalfof,theemployee."207(e).Thestatute `  includesalistofexceptionstothisrule,see207(e)(1)-(e)(8),  \  butthelistofexceptionsisexhaustive,see778.207(a),the   exceptionsaretobeinterpretednarrowlyagainsttheemployer,see d  Mitchellv.KentuckyFin.Co.,359U.S.290,295-96(1959),andthe `  employerbearstheburdenofshowingthatanexceptionapplies,see   IdahoSheetMetalWorkers,Inc.v.Wirtz,383U.S.190,209(1966). h  ` Forthereasonsthatfollow,weholdthattheTownis d obligatedtoincludeshiftdifferentialpay,longevitypay,and  careerincentivepayintheofficers'"regularrate"underthe l FLSA. h  ` 1.0 ShiftDifferentialPay (# (#  ` Thecaselawisunequivocalthatshift-differentialpay p  mustbeincludedinanemployee'sFLSA"regularrate."TheSupreme !l" Courthasspecificallyinterpreted207(e)oftheFLSAtoinclude "$ suchpayments: t$& Whereanemployeereceivesahigherwageorratebecause  &p!( ofundesirablehoursordisagreeablework,suchwage &F") representsashiftdifferentialorhigherwagesbecause '#* ofthecharacteroftheworkdoneorthetimeatwhichhe (#+ isrequiredtolaborratherthananovertimepremium. x)$, Suchpaymentsenterintothedeterminationoftheregular N*%- rateofpay. $+t&.  +J'/ Aaron,334U.S.at468-69(emphasisadded).TheSecretaryofLabor  hasalsoclearlyadoptedthisview.See778.207(b)("TheAct \ requirestheinclusionintheregularrateofsuchextrapremiums X asnightshiftdifferentials....").    ` TheTownarguesthattheshiftdifferentialsareproperly `  excludedfromtheofficers'regularrateunder29C.F.R.778.206,  \  whichisentitled"Premiumsforworkoutsidebasicworkdayor   workweek." Thatregulationisflatlyinapplicabletoshift d  differentialpayments.Section778.206addressesthecalculation ,|  ofexcludablecontractovertimepremiumsunder207(e)(7),andin ( theparagraphquotedabove,theSupremeCourtinAaronheldthat  shift-differentialpayisnot"anovertimepremium."Theofficers 0 areentitledtohavetheirshiftdifferentialsincludedintheir , regularrate.   ` 2.0 LongevityPay4 (# (#  ` Theofficersarealsoentitledtohavetheircontractual 0 longevitypayincludedintheirregularrate.Suchlongevity   paymentsdonotappeartofallwithintheliteraltermsofanyof 8!" thestatutoryexclusionsin207(e);ifthatisso,theymustbe "4$ included.See29C.F.R.778.200(c)("[A]llremunerationfor $& employmentpaidtoemployeeswhichdoesnotfallwithinoneof <&!( thesesevenexclusionaryclausesmustbeaddedintothetotal '8#* compensationreceivedbytheemployeebeforehisregularhourly )$, rateofpayisdetermined.").Indeed,theannuallongevitypayment @+&. isessentiallyaformofbonus.See778.208(bonuspayments,for  purposesoftheFLSA,are"paymentsmadeinadditiontotheregular \ earningsofanemployee").Bonusesthatareexplicitlypromisedto X employees--asthelongevitypaymentsareintheCBA--mustbe   includedintheemployees'regularrate.207(e)(3);778.211 `  (anybonuspaidpursuanttoacontractmustbeincludedinthe  \  regularrate).    ` Inacloselyanalogous# XKXXXKĻ#XKXX XKԀcase,theSixthCircuitheldthat d  policeofficers'longevitypaymentsmustbeincludedintheirFLSA `  regularratebecausetheyarebydefinitioncompensationforthe   lengthofservice.SeeFeatsentv.CityofYoungstown,70F.3d h 900,905(6thCir.1995).TheFifthCircuithasrejectedthis d argumentonthegroundthatlongevitypaymayconstitutea  discretionarygiftexcludableunder207(e)(2),butinsoholding, l thecourtdistinguishedlongevitypaymentsthatarepromisedto h employeesinacollectivebargainingagreement.SeeMoreauv.  Klevenhagen,956F.2d516,521(5thCir.1992).Eitherway,the p  longevitypaymentsheremustbeincludedinappellants'regular !l" rate. "$  ` TheTownarguesthatlongevitypayisproperlyexcluded t$& fortworeasons:(1)becauseitisonlypaidonanannualbasis;  &p!( and(2)becauseitdoesnotconstitutecompensationfor"hours '#* worked." Thefirstargumentiswithoutmerit:theregulations x)$, expresslycontemplateretroactivecalculationofovertimeto $+t&. accommodatecompensationnotgivenonaweeklybasis,see,e.g.,  778.209(methodsofincludingbonusesinregularrate),and \ courtshavehadlittledifficultyhandlingsuchcalculationswhen X theyarise,see,e.g.,Reichv.InterstateBrandsCorp.,57F.3d   574,575-76(7thCir.1995)(explaininghowtoincorporatean `  annuallump-sumpaymentintoanemployee'sregularrate).  \   ` TheTown'ssecondargumentismoreproblematicinlight   ofthiscourt'ssuggestioninPlumleyv.SouthernContainer,Inc., d  303F.3d364(1stCir.2002),that207(e)reflectsCongress's `  focuson"hoursactuallyworkedintheserviceandatthegainof   theemployer."Id.at370.Plumley,however,shouldnotberead h forthepropositionthat207(e)'sdefinitionof"regularrate" d incorporatesonlycompensationthatisliterallypaidonanhourly  basis.Theregulationsprovidetothecontrary,see,e.g., l 778.207(b)(providingthatunder207(e),"lumpsumpremiums h whicharepaidwithoutregardtothenumberofhoursworked...  mustbeincludedintheregularrate"),andcourtshave p  consistentlyrejectedsuchahardrule,see,e.g.,Interstate !l" Brands,57F.3dat578(notalllump-sumpaymentscanbeexcluded "$ fromtheregularratecalculation).Accordingly,weholdthatthe t$& Townmustincludetheofficers'contractuallyguaranteedlongevity  &p!( payintheirFLSAregularrate. '#*  `  x)$,  ` 3.0 CareerIncentive(QuinnBill)Pay (# (#  ` Themostdifficultquestionconcernswhetherthe \ "career-incentive"payavailabletopoliceundertheQuinnBill, X MassGen.Lawsch.41,108L,mustbeincludedintheofficers'   FLSAregularrate.QuinnBillpaymentsarenondiscretionarysums `  paidtopoliceofficersbasedonaccumulatededucationalcredits.  \  Seeid.TheTownreliesonBienkowskiv.NortheasternUniv.,285   F.3d138(1stCir.2002),inwhichthiscourtconcludedthatthe d  Portal-to-PortalActrelievesemployersofanyneedtopayFLSA `  overtimeforthetimethatofficersspendreceivingeducation(in   thatcase,EMTtraining)coveredbytheQuinnBill.Seeid.at h 14142.Becauseemployersarenotobligatedtopayovertimefor d Quinn-Bill-eligibleeducation,theTownargues,anycompensation  theofficersreceiveunderthecorresponding"careerincentive" l provisionsoftheCBAshouldnotbeincludedintheofficers'FLSA h regularrate.   ` Thoughinitiallyappealing,theTown'sargumentfails. p  ThequestioninBienkowski--whethertheFLSArequiresanemployer !l" topayovertimeforhoursspentineducationoff-site--is "$ logicallydistinctfromthequestioninthiscase,whichiswhether t$& theincreasedpaythattheofficersreceiveoncethateducationis  &p!( completedshouldbeincludedintheirFLSAregularrate. '#* Bienkowskididnotaddressthe$850lumpsumpaymentthatthe x)$, officersinthatcasereceivedascareer-incentivepaypursuantto $+t&. theirCBA.See285F.3dat140.Similarly,thecareer-incentive  payinthiscaseisnondiscretionarycompensationguaranteedtothe \ officersundertheirCBA.3 #  26      ׀Accordingly,itmustbeincludedinthe X officers'regularratebecauseitispartofthe"remunerationfor   employment"paidtotheofficers.207(e).AstheSixthCircuit `  heldoncloselyanalogousfacts:  \  The[CBA]doesnotprovideforincreasedwagesbasedon   thepoliceofficers'educationallevels.Educational   advancement,however,enhancesthequalityofan d  employee'sjobperformance....Therefore,tothe :  extentthatthepoliceofficer'ssalariesdonot `  [otherwise]accountfortheireducationalbackground,the 6 bonusesattributabletoeducationaldegreescompensate   theplaintiffsfortheirservicesandcannotbeexcluded  fromtheregularrateunderSection7(e)(2). h    Featsent,70F.3dat904-05.Accordingly,theTownisobligatedto d includetheofficers'careerincentivepayinthecalculationof  theirFLSAregularrate. l  D.RollCallPay  h  ` Theonlyremainingliabilityissueisthematterofroll 0 callpay.Theofficerschallengetherollcallpayschemeinthe   CBAontwogrounds.First,theofficersarguethattheFLSA 8!" obligatestheTowntoincludethetimerequiredforrollcall "4$ attendance(tenminutespershift,accordingtotheCBAs )inthe  officers'hoursworkedeachweek,ratherthancompensateit \ separatelyintheannuallumpsumprovidedundertheCBA. Second, X theofficerscontendthattheTowndoesnotcompensatethem   adequatelyforrollcallattendancebecauserollcalltimeoften `  pushestheofficers'weeklyhoursworkedoverforty.Whendivided  \  bythetotalnumberofhoursspentatrollcallduringtheyear,   thelumpsumpaymentundertheCBAworksouttolessthanoneand d  onehalftimestheofficers'regularrateofpay.  `   ` Thelatterissueiseasier.TheTowndoesnotdispute   thatthetimeofficersspendatrollcalliscompensable"work" h undertheFLSA.4 #  27      ׀Cf.Andersonv.Mt.ClemensPotteryCo.,328U.S. d 680,69091(1946)(undertheFLSA,thecompensableworkweek  ordinarilyincludes"alltimeduringwhichanemployeeis l necessarilyrequiredtobeontheemployer'spremises,ondutyor h ataprescribedworkplace").Thetimethattheofficersspendat  rollcallisfullysubjecttotheovertimerulesoftheFLSA.So p  ifanofficerworksfiveeighthourshiftsinaweekand,in !l" addition,attendsrollcallfortenminutesbeforeeachshift,the "$ Townowesthatofficerovertimepayforthefiftyminutesworkedin  excessoffortyhours.Thisschemehastheeffectthatinagiven \ week,someofficerswillbepaidforrollcallattendanceattheir X regularrate,whileotherswillreceivetimeandahalf,depending   howmanyshiftstheyhappenedtoworkinthatweek.Butthis `  resultisnotunfair;itsimplyreflectsCongress'sjudgmentthat  \  anemployermustpaymoreforeveryhouroflaboritdemandsofan   employeebeyondfortyinaweek.207(a)(1). d   ` ThemoredifficultquestioniswhethertheFLSAprecludes `  thepartiesfromagreeingbycontractthatpaymentsforrollcall   timeshallbemadeonanannualratherthanaweeklybasis.There h isnorequirementintheFLSAthatovertimecompensationbepaid d weekly,see29C.F.R.778.106,andinsomecircumstancesaCBA  mayprovideforadifferentrule,seeInterstateBrands,57F.3dat l 576.TheTownthusurgesthecourttoupholdtheparties' h contractualagreementthatrollcallpayshallbedisbursedinan  annuallumpsum.ButundertheSecretaryofLabor'sinterpretative p  regulations,"[t]hegeneralruleisthatovertimecompensationmust !l" bepaidontheregularpaydayfortheperiodinwhichsuch "$ workweekends."778.106.Wherepracticalconsiderationsrequire t$& departurefromthatrule,theSecretaryhasinterpretedtheActto  &p!( mandatepromptpaymentoncetheamountcanbecalculatedandthe '#* mechanicsofthepaymentarranged: x)$, Paymentmaynotbedelayedforaperiodlongerthanis $+t&. reasonablynecessaryfortheemployertocomputeand +J'/ arrangeforpaymentoftheamountdueandinnoeventmay  paymentbedelayedbeyondthenextpaydayaftersuch  computationcanbemade. \ Id.(emphasisadded).Because778.106isaninterpretative X bulletin,itdoesnotcommandformaldeferencefromthiscourt.   Battertonv.Francis,432U.S.416,425n.9(1977);Reichv. `  NewspapersofNewEngland,Inc.,44F.3d1060,1070(1stCir.  \  1995);InterstateBrands,57F.3dat577.Nevertheless,the   Secretary'sinterpretations"havethepowertopersuade,iflacking d  powertocontrol,astheyconstituteabodyofexperienceand `  informedjudgmenttowhichcourtsandlitigantsmayproperlyresort   forguidance."JohnAldenLifeIns.,126F.3dat8(quoting h Skidmorev.Swift&Co.,323U.S.134,140(1944))(internal d quotationmarksomitted).   ` WewillnotdepartfromtheSecretary'sguidanceonthis l issue.AstheThirdCircuitrecentlyobservedinafactually h similarcase,theSecretary'srulethatovertimepaymentsmustbe  madeassoonaspracticableprovidesaclearandusefultestfor p  whenwagesbecome"unpaid"underthestatute.SeeBrooksv.Vill. !l" ofRidgefieldPark,185F.3d130,13536(3dCir.1999)(concluding "$ that778.106"embodiesanimportantaspectoftheFLSA"and t$& requiringpromptpaymentofovertimewagesnotwithstandingthe  &p!( parties'contractualagreementtodefercompensation).Section '#* 778.106isalsoconsistentwiththeFLSA'sfocusontheworkweekas x)$, itsbasicunit,cf.29C.F.R.776.4(a)("Theworkweekistobe $+t&. takenasthestandardindeterminingtheapplicabilityofthe  act.");778.104("TheActtakesasingleworkweekasitsstandard \ ...."),aswellaswiththeFLSA'spurposetoprotectworkers X from"theevilofoverworkaswellasunderpay."Barrentine,450   U.S.at739(quotingOvernightMotorTransp.Co.v.Missel,316 `  U.S.572,578(1942))(internalquotationmarksomitted).  \   ` WeholdthattheTownmustincludethetimerequiredfor   officerstoattendrollcallintheofficers'weeklyhoursworked, d  thatitmustcompensatetheofficersaccordingly(including `  overtimepremiumswhenapplicable),andthatsuchcompensation   shallnotbedelayedlongerthanthefirstpaydayaftertheamount h canpracticablybedetermined. d  E.DamagesandOffsets    ` Theofficershaveaskedthecourttoenterjudgmentin  theirfavor,awarddamages,andconsiderinjunctiverelief;the 4 Townrequeststhatwedeterminetheextent,ifany,towhichitmay 0 offsetcontractualovertimepaymentsagainstitsFLSAovertime   liability.Wedeclinetoreachtheseissuesatthistime.The 8!" districtcourtistheproperforumforlitigationofdamagesand "4$ relatedremedyissuesinthefirstinstance. $&   III.  <&!( -/ ` Thecourtisnotunsympathetictothefiscalbindin (T#* whichmanytownsinMassachusettsfindthemselvestoday.Andin )%, thiseraofheightenedsecurity,citiesandtownsacrossthe \+&. Commonwealthhavelittlechoicebuttorequirelawenforcement  officerstoworklongerhoursandtakeextrashiftstoensurethe \ publicsafety.Thiscase,inbroadterms,isaboutwhomustbear X thefinancialburdenofthoseincreasedhours.Congresshasmade   itschoiceplain:theFLSAprotectspolice,asitdoesnearlyall `  publicemployees.SeeAuer,519U.S.at457.Thisisthebetter  \  rule:thepublic,ratherthanpoliceofficersindividually,must   paythepriceofincreased# XKXXXKv#XKXX XKԀprotection. d   ` Thejudgmentbelowis affirmed astotheofficersof `  supervisoryrank.Astotheremainingofficers,thedecisionof ( thedistrictcourtis reversed andthecaseis remanded for  proceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion. L  `  Soordered.   # XKXXXK3#