Alvarez v. IBP, 339 F.3d at 903; see also Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 133 (1944) ( Whether time is spent predominantly for the employer s benefit or for the employee s is a question dependent upon all the circumstances of the case. ); Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2004) (changing clothes may be considered integral and indispensable where the changing of