Give me a break
June 14, 2010 12:43 PM   Subscribe

In the state of California, what is the minimum number of hours a non-exempt, hourly employee must work before taking his/her thirty minute meal break?

I am currently involved in a friendly, yet still serious, debate with my manager concerning meal breaks. I know all the rules concerning maximum hours, i.e., an employee must take a thirty minute meal break before the fifth hour of a shift that will last more than six hours. My concern rests with minimum hours. Our managers are scheduling us in such a way that we clock in, work roughly thirty minutes, and then take the required meal break. They essentially want to get the break "out of the way" so they are not in violation of California's labor laws. I contend that forcing me to break only thirty minutes into a shift is not providing the purpose of the break, i.e., to allow me to rest.

So, are there rules concerning minimum hours that must be worked before an employee is forced to take a break?
posted by AlliKat75 to Law & Government (10 answers total)
 
I didn't see anything here. You may want to try asking someone at the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement district office for your region by calling one of the non-red numbers on this page.
posted by ND¢ at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2010


Unfortunately, the interpretation of the The DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations sides more with your employer. The information I have on this is here. The pertinent pages are 163 and 164.

Employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked. The court held that the employer’s practice of providing employees with an “early lunch” within the first few hours of an employee’s arrival at work did not violate California law, even though that would mean that the employee might then work in excess of five hours without an additional meal period.
45.2.2 Note: Labor Code § 512, requiring an employer

posted by Zophi at 1:04 PM on June 14, 2010


The quote Zophi posted is pretty common in labour legislation. That's the reason why most union contracts stipulate a window within which a meal break should occur.
posted by kaudio at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2010


Response by poster: Wow. I am finding this hard to believe. Taking a break before I work truly defeats the purpose. Perhaps I should start a movement.
posted by AlliKat75 at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2010


IANYL, TINLA

What time of the day are you having your 30-min break? I mean, if you come in at 7:30 am and take the 30-minute "lunch" break at 8:00 am, then have to work straight through to 4:30 pm, that doesn't make much sense. I don't know whether it is specifically against the law to do this (you can try searching California Wage Orders and Opinion Letters to see).

I have a feeling that if you are working an additional 6 hours after your meal break, this might make a difference. I think the intent of the law might be to prevent you from working six consecutive hours without a meal break, which is why it seems logical to do it 4 hours into a 8 hour work day, but I don't know for sure, as I haven't looked over a lot of that stuff in quite some time.

It might be worth clarifying with the DLSE (as noted, they issue clarification letters every so often, and also will consult with you in person if you like).

By the way, are you getting your 10-minute rest periods in addition to your 30-minute meal breaks? Note that these rest periods are supposed to be in the middle of the four-hour period, not at the beginning or end of it. Odd that the same thing isn't spelled out for meal breaks.
posted by jabberjaw at 4:28 PM on June 14, 2010


I work at a very large company in CA who strictly adheres to the break/lunch schedule put forth by the state (or at least claims that they do!) and who also loves to over-complicate things. If working an 8 hour shift, you must take your first 15 minute break before the third hour of your shift and your 30 minute lunch no later than five hours into your shift. For example, If you start your shift at 9 am, you must clock out for your lunch by 1:59. If you clock out at 2:00, it's considered the 6th hour of your shift therefore triggering a "lunch penalty" and forcing the company to pay you for an extra hour of work. Obviously, they do not like doing this. As for your last break, the only rule is that it can't be within the last hour of your shift.
posted by couchtater at 8:10 PM on June 14, 2010


Ah...you wanted minimum requirements! It might be good if I could read! I have been told that for an 8 hour shift, your first 15 minute break can be no earlier than 1 hour into your shift and 30 minute break 3 hours into your shift would still be considered extremely early. I think there's definitely something fishy with your situation.
posted by couchtater at 8:13 PM on June 14, 2010


Your employer is wrong. The idea is you get a lunch break at an appropriate interval. In you case, after 5 hours of work. If you have a union, check with your union steward.
posted by fifilaru at 10:25 PM on June 14, 2010


According to California Law, you are allowed on 30 minute meal break for every 5 hours that you work. It cannot be a "working" lunch, and if they don't allow you this break, then they owe you one hour of pay a day at your regular working rate for each day that you are not allowed a proper meal break. You are also supposed to receive a 10 minute break for every 4 hours worked. The penalty for not allowing this is the same for the work break. If you work only 6 hours a day, then you may waive these mandatory breaks. (source)...and another source.

Your employer is in violation of the labor laws of California. I recommend that you enlighten your manager of this fact. If your manager refuses to acknowledge the law, then I suggest that you contact the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:31 PM on June 14, 2010


Response by poster: Thanks for all the links...all quite useful. I shall be educating my manager (funny how this is always the case).
posted by AlliKat75 at 12:34 PM on June 15, 2010


« Older The oil spill is bad, isn't it?   |   "Taking it slow" Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.