As a company are we able to break up the California meal break to avoid the penalty? 

Scenario: An employee has a meeting or training that interferes with their lunch (1 hour)break.

• Can we as a company require the employee to break up their mealtime and take 30 minutes on their 3rd hour worked, and the remainder 30 minutes after their meeting/training lets say on their 5th or 6th hour worked?
• Can we as a company require them to do this, or is this an option and totally up to the employee if they want to split their meal break?

Thank you

 

 

i am a little confused.  i thought california required a 30-minute break? i clipped a FAQ fromt he state. here it is:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MealPeriods.htm 

Under California law (IWC Orders and Labor Code Section 512), employees must be provided with no less than a thirty-minute meal period when the work period is more than five hours (more than six hours for employees in the motion picture industry covered by IWC Order 12-2001).

Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the entire thirty-minute meal period and is free to leave the employer's premises, the meal period shall be considered "on duty," counted as hours worked, and paid for at the employee's regular rate of pay. An "on duty" meal period will be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents the employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the employer and employee an on-the-job meal period is agreed to. The test of whether the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty is an objective one. An employer and employee may not agree to an on-duty meal period unless, based on objective criteria, any employee would be prevented from being relieved of all duty based on the necessary job duties. Some examples of jobs that fit this category are a sole worker in a coffee kiosk, a sole worker in an all-night convenience store, and a security guard stationed alone at a remote site.

 

Hi Regdulop,

 Thank you for the quick response.  The 30 minute meal break is not in question.  The question is, can we force the employee to break up their meal break?

The employee prefers not to break up their meal break from (1 hour) to two 30 minute lunches.  The question is can we as the employer force them to take their lunch on their 3rd hour worked and then another on the 5th or 6th hour, due to our scheduling for trainings/meetings? 

The employee is stating they are being inconvenienced by having their meal break split up to two different 30 minute breaks and since the company scheduled the training/meetings, they feel they should not be forced to split their lunch time in two different 30 minute sections.

For example:

The employee works 7am-4pm with 1 hour lunch. The employees normal lunch time prior to the 5th hour would be 11:30am-12:30pm.  However, due to a scheduled meeting or training that is scheduled between 10:30am -12:30pm.   If the employee waits til to take lunch after the meeting or training the employee wil have taken lunch after the 5th hour worked.  This will create a California Meal Payout.  Therefore, can we as an employer force the employee to take a 30 minute lunch at 10:00am? The employee will have worked 3 hours by 10:00am.  Or is this the employees option, since we are already inconveniencing them as it is with the training/meeting? 

I have reviewed the California Labor Law books and it does not say that the employees can be forced to take their lunch earlier,when they do not wish to.  Has anyone experienced this and/or how have you handled this in type of situation in the past.  

 

Under California law, as I read it (and I've read the law but I'm not a California expert), the employee is entitled to at most 2 separate 30 minute breaks.  So the issue of whether you can break up the person's 1 hour break is a non-starter because they are not entitled to a 1 hour break under the law.  If you have internal policy, established practice, government administrative code, or a CBA in place saying otherwise, that's a different matter.

My own experience with administering break laws in other states suggests that it's pretty much up to the employer as to when the break is to be taken.  The California code does not say that a person can't have their break until after any particular period of time.  I can recall in the past situations in which an employee preferred to be let off work 30 minutes early rather than take a 30 minute break in the middle of their shift.  That's actually frowned upon in the Department of Industrial Relations Q&A section.  Some laws are more detailed than others.  For example, in Washington, you can't make someone take their break less than 2 hours from shift start or more than 5 hours after shift start in addition to other specifications about how the break is to be administered.

I don't see anything like that in California 512(a), 800, or IWC wage order no. 1-2001 sec. 11.  However, there may be something in regulation that you won't see in the statutes. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_mealperiods.htm

Based on a quick re-read of the meal periods faq for California, I think you are OK with having your employee take one 30 minute break 3 hours into shift and another one later in the day.  In fact, in the proposed revision of the regulations, they stipulate that you have to provide a break in the 5th hour of work unless you have already provided one. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/mrpregs.htm

Hi TXHRGuy,

 

Thanks for the detailed information.  This is helpful

 

Arcy

Hi Arcy,

Glad to help and welcome to the forums!

TXHRGuy