I would like a clarification and if possible a link to a nrs or cfr.

Does an employee have to take a non-paid lunch break in a 8-hr work day ?

Quote from company memo:
"It is mandatory that any person working over 6 hours per day receive a lunch period. You will not be paid for lunch periods and you may not work through the lunch period under normal circumstatnces."

Thanks

Nevada law requires that an employee who works an 8 hours shift MUST have a half hour unpaid meal break, plus a ten minute paid 10 minute break for every four hours of work.

http://www.laborcommissioner.com/faqs.htm

But even if this were not true, it is the right of the employer to demand that the employees take a break. It is not the right of the employee to decide what hours they are going to work, and this includes breaks. It is not the right of the employee to decide that they're going to work through their break.

If the employer wants to make the breaks mandatory for all employees working six hours a day instead of eight hours, they may do that.

I work from 8:00 am to 5:00 and I can eat anytime I want but am not allowed to close for lunch or not to answer the phone. I other words I can not eat without interruption. Is this legal?

If you are not relieved of duty then it isn't a bona fide meal period. Are you the only person on site?

The law does not require that an employee MUST take a lunch, rather that the employer "must authorize and allow" a lunch. That's different than saying that an employee must take the lunch.

It is still up to the employer, not the employee. If the employer says take a lunch, you take a lunch.

And I strongly suspect that if the state DOL comes calling, the employer saying, "Oh, we allowed the employee to take a lunch but they decided not to" is not going to hold water.

there are a lot of instances where labor law stop and company policy begin, but since this is a forum about Nevada Labor Law, that's how my reply was tailored. I should have gone on to explain that if the company policy states that you must take a lunch, then you should take a lunch....remember that a company in Nevada doesn't need a reason to fire you, so why push it. The LAW does not require you to take a lunch, only that you have to be afforded the opportunity by the employer, if you so desire.

Okee fine. Whatever you say.

WTF does that mean? If you don't want input from others, fine by me. Field all the questions yourself since you know it all.

NRS 608.019 Periods for meals and rest.

1. An employer shall not employ an employee for a continuous period of 8 hours without permitting the employee to have a meal period of at least one-half hour. No period of less than 30 minutes interrupts a continuous period of work for the purposes of this subsection.



the words are "shall not, without permitting"

Which means that they must allow you to take a lunch break but you are not required to take a lunch break under Nevada Law.

That being said, the company can order you to take a 30 minute lunch break. If you don't take the lunch break you are guilty of insubordination, which is an offense that warrants termination.

Question: Now that the law is clarified, does anyone know the law or have an opinion on if that employee didn't take the lunch, should he still be compensated for it? Irregardless whether or not he is fired for insubordination.

It's not an opinion, it's the law. The employee must be paid for all hours worked, approved or not.