This barrage is fired from two different directions. Both volleys land well wide of the mark. A The appellants asseverate that if the terms of the CBA ensure that a successful FLSA suit inevitably will result in ending the pay premium, then the CBA contains a veiled threat against pursuing FLSA rights and is per se retaliatory. The asseveration lacks force. The CBA leaves no room to doubt that the State bestowed the non-standard pay premium on the probation officers in lieu of overtime compensation. It simply is not retaliatory for an employer and an employee to agree to alternative methods for compensating overtime work based on the latter’s coverage status under the FLSA. See, e.g., Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624, 630, 62 S.Ct. 1223, 1226, 86 L.Ed. 1716 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Bristol, 6 F.3d 1168, 1173 (6th
holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa holding under flsa holding that the flsa does not preempt a state law contractual claim that seeks to recover wages for time that is compensable under the contract but not under the flsa holding that nothing in the flsa bars an employer from contracting with his employees to pay them the same wages that they received previously holding same in the flsa retaliation context