A case involving workers who say they’re being denied pay at Portland’s Barber Foods has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Workers contend Barber Foods is wrong for refusing to pay them for putting on coats, gloves, hairnets and earplugs before clocking in for jobs processing chicken. Barber argues that workers are paid to process meat, not get dressed.

The Supreme Court has been asked to reconcile conflicting opinions from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which sided with Barber Foods, and the 9th Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco, which sided with workers in a similar case.

The Supreme Court, which combined the two cases to resolve the conflict between the courts, heard arguments Monday on Chief Justice John Roberts’ first day on the bench.

The crux of the case is about when the workday begins. Employees contend that work begins when they put on protective clothing and equipment that management requires.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set rules for getting paid. A 1946 Supreme Court decision said in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. that workers deserved pay for walking from the gate to their workstations. In response, Congress adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act in 1947 that specifically blocked payment for walking to a place where the “principal activity or activities” are performed at a work site.

But a 1956 Supreme Court decision in Steiner v. Mitchell ruled that workers donning and doffing protective clothing in a battery plant should be compensated.

On Monday, several justices sounded sympathetic to the argument from workers that because the company requires protective clothing and equipment, work begins with putting them on.

At one point, Justice Antonin Scalia, who is considered one of the most conservative members of the court, cut off Carter Phillips, the lawyer representing the companies.

While the dispute involves a few minutes a day for workers in Portland, the stakes for employers nationwide are enormous. “This was an act to protect employers from billions of dollars of liability,” Phillips said.

He said toting up the time it takes to wait in line for various pieces of equipment at the Barber plant would be expensive if applied nationwide. “That’s the basis on which you wind up with big numbers,” he said.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argued for the workers, said companies will only arrange clothing and safety equipment more efficiently if they are forced to pay for the time it takes to put on and take off.

“Right now there is no incentive to adopt a more efficient scheme,” Goldstein said.