We catch missed breaks, unpaid break premiums, and open heat-plan items — then chase each one to a documented fix.

Every wrapped project is a separation event. §201 / §202 / §203 waiting-time penalties attach at termination. A clean payroll process gets you most of the way; the missing piece is the per-period record the post-layoff plaintiff’s firm will request.

Construction crews take breaks on-site, often inside the §512 fifth-hour window Donohue v. AMN Services made the presumption trigger. The California Supreme Court described an employer system of the same per-period design and said that, without the rounding, it “would have ensured accurate tracking of meal period violations.” We don’t round: attestation prompts fire on unrounded punch times — where your timekeeping rounds punches, deployment turns the rounding off, and where unrounded punches can’t be supplied, we say so rather than prompt off rounded data. No court has yet held that an attestation rebuts the presumption — and where a period comes back short, the premium is paid and the correction is entered.

Cal/OSHA §3395 requires a written heat-illness prevention plan, and the training documentation runs through the IIPP at 8 CCR 3203(b)(2). The employer owes those records whether or not anyone helps keep them, and Cal/OSHA — not a plaintiff — is the enforcement mechanism. We keep them current alongside the meal and rest record, with the correction entered beside the hazard it fixes.

No. The attestation flow runs through SMS or a single short link the foreman shares with the crew at end of day. The foreman keeps his existing workflow — the notebook, the truck, the conversation. MicroForensics captures the record alongside it, not in place of it.

BusyBusy and ExakTime produce time data — clock-ins, clock-outs, GPS, geofencing. That is where the record starts, not where it ends. Donohue v. AMN Services holds that time records showing a short, late, or missed meal period raise a rebuttable presumption; what the employer needs next is the reason and the documented response. MicroForensics sits on top of BusyBusy or ExakTime, ingests the time data, routes the per-period attestation, and requires a correction entered alongside every exception. No California court has yet held that an attestation on its own rebuts the presumption — we say so plainly, because that is precisely why the correction field is mandatory.

Ask early, because it changes the fit. Labor Code §§512(e)–(f) and 514 exempt qualifying construction employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement from the meal-period and overtime provisions, and §2699.6 removes qualifying construction work performed under such an agreement from PAGA. Whether your agreement qualifies is a legal question for your counsel, not for us — but if it does, we will say the meal-period module is not what you need. What does not change is the compelled side: the §3395 heat plan and training documentation, the IIPP hazard and correction record, the wage statements.

MicroForensics is California-specific today. For multi-state crews, the California attestation runs on California-side shifts; we add a thin Nevada / Arizona overlay as an integration add-on when the crew composition warrants it. Most construction operators don’t need the overlay; we’ll tell you in the records diagnostic whether yours does.

Yes — most contractors at this size have no dedicated HR. The system carries the four items §2699(g)(2) actually names: periodic payroll audits with action taken in response, lawful written policies, supervisor training on Labor Code and wage order compliance, and corrective action as to supervisors. It produces a dated, exportable record of all four. The office manager or operations lead becomes the audit-trail owner, not an HR generalist.