Where can I find a site or a document stateing that Arizona does not require breaks or lunches? I need to print a document that I can take to my employer that states this clear and undeniable. Is there such a thing?

It's not that there IS a law saying employers need not offer breaks or lunches; it's that the ISN'T a law saying that they must.

Federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks. However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks work-time that must be paid. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished.

Bona fide meal periods (typically lasting at least 30 minutes), serve a different purpose than coffee or snack breaks and, thus, are not work time and are not compensable.

see this website
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm


ASLO
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require breaks or meal periods be given to workers. Some states may have requirements for breaks or meal periods. If you work in a state which does not require breaks or meal periods, these benefits are a matter of agreement between the employer and the employee (or the employee's representative).

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/008.htm

Well, I guess I'm the bad guy. I'm an Asst. Manager for a quick service restaurant and I've always known that breaks in Arizona are not required. It's really up to the employer specially those little smoking breaks. :cool: What I'm not sure is if the federal law does. I've been trying to get some information on that and I couldn't. Also

No, Federal law does not require breaks or lunches. Federal law says that IF breaks are offered, a break of less than 20 minutes must be a paid break, and that a longer break can be unpaid IF the employee is entirely relieved of duty. But under both Federal and Arizona law, it is entirely up to the employer whether breaks are offered or not.

NO state requires an employer to offer smoking breaks.

Hi, I am the Branch Manager for a small local bank. Today, the question of time of lunches and breaks came up. If I have an employee that works 6 hours, how long of a lunch and/or rest period do I have to give him? Also, if I have someone working 8 hours, how long of a lunch and/or rest period do I have to give him?

Thanks.

The answer has not changed since the original thread was posted. Arizona does not require any breaks of any kind, regardless of the length of the shift.

First thank you for all the great information. I've got the same sort of question, with a new twist.

The headquarters/corporate office of my employer is located in the state of California. We however live and work in the state of Arizona. I've been informed by fellow manager's (of which, I am one also) that we have a new policy in effect immediately regarding Breaks and Meal Periods. Of which none have existed before today and followed the lack thereof in Arizona Labor Laws.

At least one 10 minute break for our 4 hour employees will be mandatory (on the clock and compensated). A mandatory (off the clock - punch out when leaving and back in upon return, non-compensated) minimum 30 minute lunch period (not one minute earlier than 30 minutes).

A debate regarding the "why's" of the new policy has been ongoing. The reasoning for the new policy was that it was in compliance with new California Labor Laws commencing in January 2007, but we're starting now. And we'll be following California Labor Laws regarding Breaks & Meal Periods, because our headquarters and payroll offices are in California.

While the new policy sounds good, it doesn't work in all cases due to extreme workloads this time of year. The change is challenging at best. Just an adjustment to change more than anything I suppose. And the bottom line is if this new policy is what the owner's want and it obviously doesn't violate Arizona Labor Laws (since there really are none regarding Breaks & Meal Periods), then that's what we'll follow.

HOWEVER, having worked for out of state companies including California, while I live and do the work in Arizona we always followed Arizona Labor Laws and paid Arizona State Taxes.

1) Is a company required to follow California Labor Laws at it's businesses in Arizona, since it's Headquarters/Corporate office is in California?

2) Are California Labor Laws regarding Breaks and Lunch Periods changing soon? what links can you provide for more info into those laws (whether old or new changes)?

3) Am I correct in assuming that if an Arizona Business License has been issued for that Business, then Arizona Labor Laws apply?

Again, Thank you for you help! Just want to win this debate or at least go in with valid information.

1.) No, Arizona businesses which are headquartered in California do not have to follow California laws. However, if the employer wishes to make all their branches uniform and follow the same laws for all branches, they may legally do so. They cannot require fewer breaks than required by law but they can require more.

2.) Not that I'm aware of.

3.) Arizona businesses need to follow Arizona laws. However, Arizona law only says that businesses NEEDN'T offer breaks or lunches. It does not in any way shape or form say they CAN'T.

Bottom line, if your employer wants you to follow CA law for breaks and lunches, then you follow CA law for breaks and lunches.

Thanks so much! I WIN the debate, I was right! Now I can sleep soundly! And have some back up for the next finishing discussion to the debate. I printed out the current California Labor Laws regarding meal periods and breaks, I'm studied and ready. I also found a Lawsuit against Walmart regarding the break and meal period issues and am betting that our employer is reacting based on that 172 million dollar judgement. Much like the McDonalds Hot Coffee, it tends to get some companies to over react in order to better CYA. Thank you for your quick reply!

The answer has not changed since the original thread was posted. Arizona does not require any breaks of any kind, regardless of the length of the shift.

THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! What's wrong with AZ and how come they can't get their *&%$ together regarding breaks?? There is an awful lot of dirty companies out there that are working their employees round the clock and not even giving them time to use the bathroom. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE YESTERDAY about this major problem. What are the steps so AZ can get some type of law on breaks and lunch periods???? This is outrageous and unacceptable:mad:

Arizona is by no means the only state with no laws requiring breaks. However, if you want to see a law enacted, you lobby your elected representatives for the change.

:confused: i work in a union environment (don't know if that makes a difference) my company (not the union) is telling us we cannot take lunch before 11:30 or after 12:30. Also that we HAVE to take an hour lunch. We cannot take a 1/2 hour lunch and leave a 1/2 hour early. This is something that was just implemented. Is this true?

THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! What's wrong with AZ and how come they can't get their *&%$ together regarding breaks?? There is an awful lot of dirty companies out there that are working their employees round the clock and not even giving them time to use the bathroom. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE YESTERDAY about this major problem. What are the steps so AZ can get some type of law on breaks and lunch periods???? This is outrageous and unacceptable:mad:
Cindy H relax a little first off just because a state does not have lunch breaks codified in law does not mean lunch breaks do not exist. Just as their is no law regarding the employer provides toilet paper in the stall. These things are dictated by custom,and can be presumed by a judge. Many states do not have the "at-will' presumption codified it is presumed.
Arizona has some very favorable laws,and precedence regarding employees,an employee in Arizona who is refused lunch breaks has the right to address this with the employer,the employer has 15 days to respond. If the employer refuses the employee can quite ,and file a suite under constructive discharge. Under ARS 23-1502(A)(1):
A. In any action under the statutes of this state or under common law, constructive discharge may only be established by either of the following:

1. Evidence of objectively difficult or unpleasant working conditions to the extent that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign, if the employer has been given at least fifteen days' notice by the employee that the employee intends to resign because of these conditions and the employer fails to respond to the employee's concerns.

So you see something was done well over yesterday in AZ very few states address constructive discharge in statue. So AZ in many ways leads in this area.
Quite simply if employers ran a shop with 8 hours no lunch,or refusing to let employees use the bathroom. A judge or Jury would decide if the employee could quit,and receive damages under constructive discharge,if the employer was notified about the conditions,and the condition was not corrected in 15 days, and such action was perceived by a Judge or jury as( objectively difficult or unpleasant working conditions to the extent that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign) damages would be awarded.
Their is no doubt in my mind not letting Employees eat or go to the bathroom would almost certainly qualify to reasonable people as objectively difficult or unpleasant working conditions .Even if it is not addressed in the ARS.
JoeC