We have one employee that is pretty much refusing to take meal breaks. What is an employeer obligation (what do we need to do) to enforce the rule of the 30 minute meal break.

Secondly, what is the penalty (to the company) for an employee who refuses to take meal breaks.

The penalty is one hour's pay if you don't provide the meal break. However, what do you mean he refuses to take it? The company has the right to force him to take it. If necessary, his supervisor can go stand over him until he gets up and clocks out, and can monitor his work station or time clock to make sure he takes the full meal break you, as the employer, requires that he take. And if he does not, you can discipline him, up to and including termination. In this case, for failure to follow company policy and insubordination. The employee does not get to make this decision.

Use your discipline policy to enforce the meal period. Explain that it's the law and he has to take the meal period. If it gets to the point of suspension he may get the idea that he has to take it.

The employee's arguement is that he is an adult and shouldn't be forced to take "lunch" if he doesn't want to. He would rather skip lunch so he can leave earlier.

The second problem comes in that he doesn't leave his desk even when he does take lunch. So often times someone will come to him for something or other. If he would leave this wouldn't happen. Can an employeer "force" an employee to leave during lunch?

Yes, an employer can "force" an employee to leave his work area during lunch.

And the employer's argument is, I am the boss of the adults who work here. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

This guy is real a piece of work. The latest is now that he wants to take his meal break at the end of his shift and "hand write" his time out. Meaning he is still going to leave early. I am going to have to talk to his supervisor and have him "lay down the law" here. This is getting ridiculous.

I looked and can not seem to find, so...is there any requirements as to the timing of a meal break? I assume that his little ploy of taking it at the end of his shift won't fly; I know it doesn't fly with me.

the below is from
http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/IWCArticle1.html
regarding meal periods for the manufaturing industry.
A) No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day's work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee. In the case of employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement, the parties to the collective bargaining agreement may agree to a meal period that commences after no more than six (6) hours of work.

The term more than 5hrs seems to me that it has to be given before 5 hrs are up. (but I may be wrong)

(C) Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an "on duty" meal period and counted as time worked. An "on duty" meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time.

It could be a way of POSSIBLY accommodating your employee. If YOU want to.

Below is the site for DLSE field office locations for CA. You could call them.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DistrictOffices.htm

This "adult" needs to be told in no uncertain terms that he will take his meal break and he will take it when he is told to take it, or he can exercise his "right" to skip lunch and leave early on the unemployment line.

If terminated, I would guess that he would not qualify for unemployment. Willful acts that violate policy will not allow one to be terminated and collect unemployment. It would be good to have a written warning in the file. You can legally fire him for the first violation, but he may get unemployment. A warning should be sufficient to defeat an unemployment claim.

I was speaking metaphorically, but your point is well taken.

I talked to his supervisor yesterday evening and he thought that our last conversation (two days ago) with the employee and solved this. So he is going to "get tough" with him.

I will suggest the written warning. I love the written warning because there is no doubt about what was told to the employee. Vebal warnings are in most cases worth the paper they are written on, since they can be easily disputed because there is nothing to fall back on.

Thanks everyone for your help. I will let you know what comes of this on Monday.

I wouldn't worry about giving a "written" warning unles your employee doesn't get the idea from the verbal. Most employers have a progressive discipline policy. Documented verbal(s), written warning(s), suspension(s), termination. Of course there are instances where termination could be an appropriate first step, stealing, violence, drugs, etc...