7 dezembro 2020
Evidence was presented in court that a number of workers entered into an agreement on the meal of service period, which provided that the worker would cede his right to revoke the agreement at any time “by at least one (1) working day” to the employer. The court found that information on the one-day retraction was stagnant, did not meet the requirements of the existing wage regime by allowing the worker to revoke the agreement on the mandatory meal period at any time. As a result, the agreement on the refuelling period was legally invalidated. Sub-Division 11 (E) allows employers, unlike Sub-Division 11 (A), to require employees to work meals in the service, provided certain conditions are met and this is the third article in my “Understanding California Meal Breaks” series. In my previous contributions, I have explained an employer`s general duty to provide meal breaks to its employees and that, in certain circumstances, employers and workers may agree not to take food breaks. This contribution continues the debate on the exceptions to the general California rule that employers offer workers food breaks; In particular, I will talk about the time when an employer may waive its obligation to take a 30-minute duty-free break and take a service lunch break. Section 226.7 of the Labour Code prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest. As has already been said, the current wage order provisions for meal periods require that workers be exempt from any obligation during a meal period. However, such a requirement is not explicitly included in the pause provision. On this basis, the Court of Appeal found that the extra-military requirement was not intended for rest periods.
Sub-Division 11 (A) allows employers and workers to agree that meal periods are on duty and to revoke these voluntary agreements at any time, and notes that the Court has considered whether the obligation to relieve a worker of any obligation is met when a worker is required to remain on demand. In a clear derogation from the previous factual approach to determining whether on-call time was working time, the majority concluded that rest periods were strictly inadmissible. The Court justified this decision by the fact that the admission of the courts to the question of whether the duty of custody disproportionately affected the ability of a worker to take an uninterrupted period of rest would have the effect of “making less clear and much more important administrative complexes”. A service break does not work as a waiver. This means that the employee still has to have a meal break, although the break is in service. Therefore, it is important for California workers and employers to know that even if all other meal requirements are met, the employer could still violate an employee`s break rights if the worker has no chance to eat during the service. The nature of the work must prevent the worker from being detracted from any obligation during the meal period; [SHRM-ONLY HR Q-A: What are the rest and meal requirements for California employees?] The Court held that, even if they are not entitled to an uninterrupted meal period, workers must be granted at least 30 minutes of “limited duty allowing them to eat their meal in relative tranquillity.” In California, an employer cannot employ a worker for more than five hours of work per day without giving the worker a meal of at least thirty minutes, except that if the worker`s total working time per day does not exceed six hours, the meal period may be waived by both the employer and the worker.