A first meal must be taken no later than the end of an employee`s fifth hour of work. A second meal must be taken no later than the end of an employee`s tenth hour of work. The Labor Code §§ 512 (e) (1) – (2) provides that if an employee in the aforementioned industries is covered by a CBA that “expressly provides for the wages, hours of work and working conditions of employees and expressly provides meal times for such employees, final and binding arbitration in disputes over the application of its meal provisions, increased rates of pay for all overtime worked and an hourly wage of at least 30 percent above the state minimum wage rate,” then § 512(e) does not apply to the employer. Callus. Rennet. Code §§ 512(e), (f). Instead, the CBA regulates and all disputes that arise between an employer and an employee must be resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of the CBA. However, in accordance with Articles 512 (e) and (f) of the Labour Code, certain unionized workers working in construction, commercial transportation, security services, suppliers of electricity, gas or local public electricity may be exempted from the requirements of the Labor Code for meals and rest periods if a valid ACA is in place. California`s Wages and Hours of Work Act requires employers to provide lunch or meal breaks to employees who work a minimum number of hours.
According to Labor Code 512, non-exempt employees who work more than 5 hours a day must receive a minimum meal of 30 minutes. If the employee works more than 10 hours a day, the file. California law grants most private sector workers the right to take meal and rest breaks. Below are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about meal and rest times. Example: Alan is supposed to work 11 hours and 30 minutes in a retail business during the holiday season. Alan`s employer is required to take two 30-minute meal breaks during Alan`s shift. Professional note: This decision does not change the basic rule that an employee who works at least a six-hour shift is entitled to a meal break and this right cannot be waived. For example, despite the company`s written policy that promises employees who have worked more than 10 hours in a particular shift a second meal period in accordance with state law, Zayerz claimed that supervisors would not allow a second meal period for practical reasons.
He also claimed that Kiewet did not offer a third rest period for workers who worked shifts of more than 10 hours. In addition, with regard to missed meals and breaks, Zayerz claimed that he and others did not systematically receive a “wage bonus” – which was supposed to consist of an hourly wage at the regular rate – when these meal and rest periods were denied. And when Kiewit paid the pay for missed meals and breaks, Zayerz claimed the company falsely labeled those wages on wages as “double-working,” which violated California`s strict standards. An employee who is not relieved of all his or her duties during the lunch break is always considered “on duty”. This also includes employees who are relieved of all tasks but must remain on the construction site. A “serving” meal period is counted as hours worked and must be paid at the employee`s standard salary. Lunch breaks “compulsory service” are only allowed if the nature of the activity prevents the employee from discharging all his tasks and has accepted it in writing. 8 The California Supreme Court has held that in order to fulfill its obligation to provide meal times, an employer must do the following: California Labor Code Section 512(a) states in part: “An employer may not employ an employee for a period of work of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal time of at least 30 minutes. with the exception that, where the worker`s total working time per day does not exceed six hours, meal times may be cancelled by mutual agreement of both the employer and the worker. (Emphasis added.) Two supermarket cashiers sued their employer under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on behalf of all employees in a similar situation, claiming that the company violated California`s mandatory meal break requirement by denying employees who worked six-hour shifts a meal break.
The court of first instance ruled in favour of the employer and the employees appealed. As most California employers know, disputes over meals and rest periods have been a hot topic for more than a decade that has worried employers in all industries. This is mainly due to the fact that state law provides for extremely strict requirements for meal and rest periods – and extremely high financial losses in case of non-compliance. However, for California employers with a unionized workforce, there could be a welcome respite that you may not be aware of. The court found that the CBA`s wording met the requirements of state law because it expressly provided for “wages, hours of work and conditions of work.” He noted that other parts of the cost-benefit analysis addressed various factors necessary to maintain decent working conditions that allowed for exemption, such as mandatory water supply to construction workers, protective equipment and sanitary toilets on construction sites, and insurance coverage for injured workers. .