..........

The rules can be found at the following webpage. I have not heard about a small company exception (if any). You can call up CA-DLSE if you want to verify that point. CA-DLSE enforces this rule.

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

pismochy: I'm wondering if there are special laws for smaller companies, and who I would go to to have the company investigated for this.

There is no "small company" exception. Your old company did the right thing by properly advising you what the law provides (you recited it perfectly), acknowledging its failure to comply with the law (presumably inadvertently), and paying you the back wages (e.g., one hour penalty payments) that you were entitled to receive under the law.

Your new company does not sound as honorable or as diligent in complying with the law. The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that employees are properly paid in accordance with the law. If you are not receiving meal breaks in accordance with the law, you can file a wage claim with the DLSE. You can access the claim form and more information about the process here http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileWageClaim.htm

I have pretty much the same situation. I have worked at a job for over 2 years and not once have I taken a lunch or rest break.

I am curious though, when I pick up my paycheck they make me sign this form that states " I agree that I have been fully reimbursed for all my meal and rest breaks for this pay period, etc etc." Does this mean it would be impossible for me to pursue the employer?

n0stalgiaz, no, that signature doesn't mean anything but that you received your check. You can still file a claim with the DLSE. And the sooner the better.

: When I pick up my paycheck they make me sign this form that states " I agree that I have been fully reimbursed for all my meal and rest breaks for this pay period." Does this mean it would be impossible for me to pursue the employer?

Impossible - no! But you are certainly facing an uphill battle.

Impossible - no! But you are certainly facing an uphill battle.

How come this would be an uphill battle? Is there not many successes with these types of claims?

And also is there a difference between management not giving me a break, and them denying me a break? Meaning would the latter situation only make me eligible to have a successful claim?

How come this would be an uphill battle?

Because you signed a statement attesting to the fact you received all your meals and breaks.

Is there not many successes with these types of claims?

There are many successes with meal break cases, but not as many successes with rest break cases. The success rate drops significantly when employees attest in writing that they received all the meal/rest break pay due them under the law (e.g., if you received no penalty pay, your signature implies that you received the underlying meal/rest breaks due you under the law).

If you can prove you signed the attestation statement under duress (e.g., if you do not sign, you will not get a check) and/or credible witnesses can vouch for the fact you were not provided meal breaks or authorized to take rest breaks you may prevail, but I think you may in for an uphill battle.

That depends. Will your timesheets or whatever payroll records your employer has show that you worked that time or will they show that you took the breaks?

If the payroll records support your claim, it is must easier. If the records were incorrect or didn't show the times and you didn't keep track of them on your own, it would be awfully hard for anyone to prove you were right.

Being that state agencies are very understaffed and overworked at this time, I would consider myself lucky if they went back for the entire two years. More likely than not, they will only check the time period you put on your claim.

Source: http://www.callaborlaw.com/archives/cat-new-laws-legislation.html

Text:

Earlier this month, Governor Schwarzenneger signed into law AB 2075, which amends California Labor Code section 206.5 and makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to require an employee, as a condition of payment of wages, to sign a statement of hours worked that the employer knows is false.

Prior to amendment, Labor Code section 206.5 prohibited employers from requiring an employee to execute a release of wage claims, unless payment of the wages has been made. The amendment extends this protection by defining “execution of a release” to expressly include requiring an employee to execute a statement of hours worked during a pay period which the employer knows to be false. Proponents of the legislation argued that the new law was needed because some employers are attempting to guard against wage and hour litigation by requiring their employees to certify records of hours worked that are false and do not accurately reflect overtime and other hours worked. The new law goes into effect January 1, 2009.

California employers who require their employees to certify their timesheets each pay period in order to be paid should evaluate their practices. Employers who knowingly permit employees to record “default” hours as opposed to actual hours worked, and/or who know employees are recording inaccurate hours, may be subject to new risk and liability under California law.

pismochy: I had my conference with the labor commissioner today. The claim was thrown out.

As I stated above, I thought you were in for an uphill battle based on the info you posted.

You should consult with a labor law attorney in your area for further advice if you wish to continue your cause.

Which is precisely why we frown on two people posting questions in the same thread.