Recently the company im employed with has enforced their working hours from 08-17:00. There was a defacto verbal /gentlemans agreement that staff could “work through” and not down tools for an hour in the middle of the day, and so long as they got the work done, they could leave to go home at 1600 not 1700, effectively taking their “lunch” at 1600 but having the benefit of using the time more effectively for themselves.
Now, they have decided to do away with the verbal arrangement, BUT they also have an issue with staff taking the lunch break… If there is a lot of work going on or they are backlogged, and a staff member leaves to take their 1 hour break, the management are getting upset when they cant get through to the employee and feel that the employees are adopting a “F-U” attitude to the company.
Now, my staff, including myself as the manager are being prejudiced when we try explain that, if we cant leave early as was the arrangement before, of which we accept company operating hours as agreed in employment contract, then as per the laws of our country, we are entitled to take 1 hours uninterupted break where that hour belongs to the employee. As the manager of my department, i agree that the lunch break belongs to the employee and that so long as the breaks are staggered to ensure continuity of work (so all staff cant take a break at the same time) the employee has every right to take their break, and not be required to work or attend to work functions during that break. Further, they should not be viewed amy differently if they are not available during that break or choose not to work in that time.
Im having an increasing difficult time negotiating this with the upper management of the company. There response is that basically staff must always be available to work, and that other branches have staff that “eat on the go” and dont choose particular times to say “im taking lunch” or they cant assist or work because they are on lunch. They feel that if an employee takes lunch and what ever time they feel like, and work comes up, they should stop their lunch break and start working again, and then after the work, take whatever time they had remaining. By not doing this, my department “are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult”.
I dont agree with their stance, which is putting me in a very difficult situation with my employers and top management.(its been hinted that i should stop challenging this becuase its going to make things worse)
This is what the labour law says:
1. An employer must give an employee who works continuously for more than five hours a meal interval of at least one continuous hour.
2. During a meal interval the employee may be required or permitted to perform only duties that cannot be left unattended and cannot be performed by another employee.
3. An employee must be remunerated:
a.) for a meal interval in which the employee is required to work or is required to be available for work; and
b.) for any portion of a meal interval that is in excess of 75 minutes, unless the employee lives on the premises at which the workplace is situated.
4. For the purposes of subsection (1), work is continuous unless it is interrupted by an interval of at least 60 minutes.
5. An agreement in writing may:
a) reduce the meal interval to not less than 30 minutes;
b) dispense with a meal interval for an employee who works fewer than six hours on a day.
This section makes provision for the employee to have a meal break.
It states that after five hours continuous work, the employee must be given a meal interval of at least one continuous hour, which may be reduced to 30 minutes by agreement between employer and employee.
The section does not mean that immediately upon completion of five hours continuous work, the employee must be given a meal break. It merely states that after five hours continuous work he must be given a meal break – it does not state at what stage after the five hours continuous work, or how long after the five hours continuous work, the meal break must be given. It means that at some stage after the 5 hours has been worked, he must be given a meal break.
Presumably then, such arrangements are left to be negotiated between employer and employee.
Provision is also made that an employee may be required to work during his meal break, but only on work that cannot be left unattended, or cannot be done by another employee.
If he does work during the meal break, he must be remunerated for it, presumably at his normal rate of pay. The act is unclear on whether the meal break should be remunerated at normal rate of pay or at overtime rates. My guess would be that if working during the meal break does push the employee into overtime, then he should be remunerated for it at overtime rates.
Today i had a staffer complain to me that he couldnt take a lunch interval and hadnt eaten because he was so busy running around working. But he was scared to bring up remuneration for the break he couldnt take with payroll, and didnt want me to take it further because he was scared he'd be prejudiced about being a problematic employee.
Am i interpreting the laws incorrectly in standing up for my staff and their rights?
TiA